Thursday, 9 November 2006

Thursday, 9 November 2006

Thursday, 9 November 2006

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Business Law Reform Bill, the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill, the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill, the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill, and any first readings of bills that appear above the line on the Order Paper.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Regional Development—Growth

1. DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) to the Minister for Industry and Regional Development: What is the Government doing to stimulate growth in regional New Zealand?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Industry and Regional Development): Heaps. In the last week there have been two very recent major regional initiatives announced. The first is in Kapiti-Horowhenua. Thanks to the very good work of my colleague Darren Hughes, $1.96 million will be provided towards a DesignTex project that aims to strengthen the region’s and the country’s textile businesses and enable them to be more globally competitive. The second initiative, announced yesterday, was in the Wairarapa. The Government will provide $1.9 million towards cuisine and fine wine; a major regional initiative that aims to build on the region’s wine and food reputation in order to take it to an international level. It involves an international partnership. Both these initiatives play to the key strengths of the regions. They fit perfectly with this Government’s agenda to transform New Zealand into an export-led, high-wage, innovative economy. [Interruption] The member should read it.

Darren Hughes: What results can New Zealanders expect to see from these initiatives, particularly the most excellent one in the Kapiti and Horowhenua region?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: High-quality, high-wage jobs.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that other initiatives such as Export Year 2007 will act positively to stimulate growth in regional New Zealand?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Absolutely, and I thank the member for his work on it.

Carbon Tax—Climate Change, Minister's Statements

2. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: How does he reconcile his statement last year, that “The Government has decided not to implement a carbon tax, or any other broad-based tax, in the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.”, with his statement in this morning’s New Zealand Herald that a State-imposed carbon tax could end plans for a coal-fired Marsden B power station?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Easily.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Government announce a carbon tax in 2004, saying it was the right approach; then in 2005 drop it, saying it would not work; yet now in 2006 it is again saying the carbon tax is a good idea; and with such flip-flops is it any wonder there is complete confusion about the Government’s climate change policies?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That member obviously should clean out his ears.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. We are not having the sort of editorialising that goes on. We ask questions and we give answers.

Hon DAVID PARKER: The member should know that I said, in December last year, and have repeatedly stated since, that the Government is considering pricing emissions in the electricity sector through emissions trading, a narrower carbon tax, or other measures. Unlike the National Party, we have been consistent in pursuit of climate change policies.

Georgina Beyer: Has he received any further reports about consistency in climate change policy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have received reports the Government has been consistent in pursuit of climate change policy. The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative is but one example, which now has widespread support in the House. National opposed it on the first reading of the bill. National opposed it at the select committee. John Key said, at the first reading: “I rise on behalf of the National Party to give the good news to the people of New Zealand—that is, the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill is a load of rubbish and the National Party will not be supporting it, for very, very good reasons indeed.” Talk about inconsistency, Dr Smith!

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does he reconcile the statement made by the Prime Minister at Labour’s conference—that the Government did not proceed with the carbon tax because it could not get a parliamentary majority to put it in place—with his statement made on Morning Report on 22 December: “We haven’t even endeavoured to find a parliamentary majority for the carbon tax, because we don’t think it’s appropriate.”, and his press release made at the time that: “A carbon tax would not cut emissions enough to justify its introduction.”; and who is telling the truth, himself or the Prime Minister?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As was said at the time, it was clear in terms of parliamentary majorities that National, United Future, New Zealand First, and the Māori Party during the election had said they would not support the carbon tax. That means we did not have a parliamentary majority. It is also true that at the time the whole-of-Government review into climate change policy indicated there might be better ways to design a carbon tax, and for both of those reasons we have done that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement made by the Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne, on this Monday on Climate Rescue Radio, that a carbon tax would not make a lick of difference and would not proceed; if so, why did he yesterday tell the New Zealand Herald the opposite; and whom do we believe—the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, or the Minister of Revenue?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There is no doubt that introducing a price for carbon emissions at the margin for new electricity generation does affect emissions, because it changes the relative profitability or the relative economics of different sorts of generation. If the House wants confirmation of that from other than me, I quote from the same article that Dr Smith quoted from earlier, in respect of comments made by Mr Williams about Mighty River’s proposal at Marsden B: “Whether it’s built will depend on other things such as whether a carbon tax is imposed. If a carbon tax is imposed, it makes the project relatively less attractive. The bigger the tax, the less attractive it becomes.” So I wouldn’t disagree with the Minister’s statement.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister say on Climate Rescue Radio: “You ask me what date would New Zealand be carbon neutral. We haven’t picked a date yet. You’ll find it becomes clear in 6 months.”, when the truth is that the Prime Minister’s carbon-neutral promise is a fantasy, and his Government has no intention of ever setting a date by which it will be achieved?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is not a fantasy to aspire to be carbon neutral.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Minister now tell the House when the Government will meet this objective of the Prime Minister of being carbon neutral, or will he at least tell us when the Government will set a date for that goal to be achieved?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In the future.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has the Minister seen the advice from Treasury that there is no realistic policy by which his Government can achieve the Kyoto targets by 2012; and what sense does it make to not be able to meet that very modest target, when the Prime Minister proposed the unbelievable target of New Zealand being carbon neutral?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That shows the difference between National and Labour on climate change. We think it is appropriate to aspire to be carbon neutral in the longer term—we did not say in the shorter term; we said in the longer term. National is beset with indifference on this issue, because its own leader even now cannot unconditionally agree that climate change is a problem. I seek leave to table the transcript of an interview with Dr Brash on the regional farming show, when he said: “The National Party, I have to say, isn’t convinced that the science on climate change is finally settled.”

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Transport, Agriculture, Energy, Ministers—Confidence

3. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence that her Ministers of Transport, Agriculture, and Energy will be able to develop adequate plans for their sectors to implement the goal she stated yesterday in the House “not to put more carbon into the atmosphere than [New Zealand] is able to offset by other means.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): As has been said, the goal is aspirational. I have full confidence in those Ministers to develop plans to work towards that goal.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Government commit to ensuring that next year’s transport emissions—15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide—will be offset, for example, by converting almost 800,000 hectares of land, which is all of the land from Parliament up to Masterton and Levin, into permanent forest; if not by next year, then when?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not anticipate all of that particular area of land ever being converted to permanent forest.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does the Government reconcile the damning rhetoric of Labour Ministers and MPs with George W Bush’s record on climate change and the accusations that he is the pocket of oil barons, when the United Nations figures tabled in Nairobi this week show that New Zealand’s emissions have grown since Labour has been in office by 6.8 percent, as compared with 1.3 percent for the US in the same period—that is, emissions in New Zealand have been growing at five times the rate of those of the United States?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Over the short term there have indeed been some differences, but US emissions of carbon dioxide are the seventh-highest in the world at 24.3 tonnes per person, whereas New Zealand’s emissions are 18.5 tonnes per person.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that next year’s agricultural emissions—37 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent—are offset, for example, by converting almost 2 million hectares of land, which is 80 percent of the Waikato region, into permanent forest; if not by next year, then when?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I doubt whether that will ever occur. To remove New Zealand’s dairy industry substantially, and a large part of its horticulture industry, would make it much more difficult in the long term to meet not merely climate change emissions targets but any other targets the Government sets in any other policy area.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does the Prime Minister explain the Government’s record of forest plantings dropping in every single year that the Government has been in office, to the point where the last 2 years have seen more trees logged than planted—for the first time since 1953—whereas neighbouring Australia has increased afforestation in every year since 1999 and has planted an additional 450,000 hectares of forest?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member would care to project his figures slightly backwards, he would find that in almost every year during the 1990s forest planting also dropped. It halved between 1996 and 1999. The primary reason for that was the large-scale conversion of land to dairying, plus low timber prices. If the National Party continues to propose policies whereby there is to be no negative impact on any part of any primary sector industry, it will find it quite impossible, in fact, to achieve any targets in that respect.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I know that it is normal to table documents at the end of a question, but given the assertions made by the Acting Prime Minister I seek leave to table the record of forest plantings, which shows that plantings grew—every single year—from 16,000 hectares in 1990 to 98,000 hectares in 1998.

Document not tabled.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I seek leave to table a document showing the planting rates over the last 30 years, which indeed grew somewhat in the early 1990s, peaked in 1994, and then continued to drop almost every year thereafter.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Given the Acting Prime Minister’s response to my last two questions, does the Government then agree with the Green Party that a dramatic reduction of emissions will have to play a major role in the Government’s excellent goal of achieving carbon neutrality, and that the goal cannot all be achieved by offsets?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that is absolutely clear. We do need to achieve much greater energy efficiency. We need to achieve a much greater reduction in emissions in terms of our transport usage. Clearly, also, those need to be long-term measures, because dramatic short-term adjustments would have serious impacts upon the economy, leading to massive unemployment and social dislocation.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has the Prime Minister stated that energy efficiency is the Government’s priority, when the Government’s own review of its energy efficiency strategy in March this year showed that despite spending $110 million on its much-vaunted strategy, energy efficiency improvements have declined in the 5 years of this Government as compared with the 5 years of the previous National Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There is no question that the strong economic growth over the last few years has had an impact in that respect. It is now time to ensure that we get greater energy efficiency over the longer term.

Hon Bill English: Why do you always get it wrong?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Of course, if the member who is now interjecting is prepared to close down the aluminium smelter, he will probably contribute in that regard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, I think you should have ruled that question out of order, because there never were 5 years of the previous National Government. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The member is entitled to make his point of order in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am making my point of order because it is historically a fact, and it is not to be dismissed or stood by in the way that I think you are tempted to do, Madam Speaker. I am making a serious point here. There were not 5 years of the previous National Government. Everybody knows that. The member should have been ruled out of order straight away and asked to ask a question with some historical accuracy. Between 1996 and 1998 there was a coalition Government—and, of course, that was the only time the country was run properly.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Madam Speaker, I encourage you to accept Mr Peters’ point of order. If he is willing to take responsibility for the rise in emissions during the period when he was the Deputy Prime Minister, I think we should allow him to do so.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the members for their contributions. Members are, of course, as they know, responsible for the facts of their supplementary questions. It is not for the Speaker to judge whether the questions are factual.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the formal review done by the Government of its energy efficiency strategy, which shows that after spending $110 million, things are a lot worse than they were before.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Question No. 4 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether this question might be held over until later in the session when the Minister of Māori Affairs will be able to be with us. I have a copy of his diary and he is certainly available, but clearly detained in getting to question time.

Madam SPEAKER: It is for the Government to decide who in fact answers the question. Is the member seeking leave?

GERRY BROWNLEE: I sought leave.

Madam SPEAKER: Sorry, I had not realised you were seeking leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

GERRY BROWNLEE: They say “You can run but you can’t hide.”, but the member cannot do either.

Madam SPEAKER: The member will please just ask the question. [Interruption] We are trying to keep order in this House and it is comments like that that create disorder. Would members please just ask their questions and give the answers.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It also causes disorder when the Government decides that Ministers are not capable of answering questions and therefore does not let them come to the House.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: There is no truth in that matter. As the member can neither run nor hide, there is no need for him to raise the sensitive issue.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not think this is getting us anywhere. Would the member just ask the question.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I am happy to take Parekura on over the 100-metres.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, that is our humour quota for the day.

Closing the Gaps Policy—Success

4. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Was the closing the gaps policy successful?

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: I would happily take up Gerry Brownlee’s offer for a 100-metres! I can advise the House that the results speak for themselves, including the lowest Māori unemployment on record, high wage growth for Māori, and Māori participation in early childhood and tertiary education as the highest on record. More Māori are involved in business, and Māori life expectancy has increased. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to doing much more.

Gerry Brownlee: How can the Minister claim to have reduced inequities between Māori and non-Māori when the Ministry of Social Development reported that from 2000 to 2004 the number of Māori living in severe hardship increased by 243 percent, and Dr Susan St John of the University of Auckland stated that families of beneficiaries, 31 percent of whom are Māori, are particularly marginalised by current Government policy, with most missing out on Working for Families?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: The Government acknowledges that there is a lot more to be done in the area of Māori social development. As well, the most recent household employment statistics tell us that in the year to the end of September 2006 Māori unemployment had decreased from 8.5 to 8 percent.

Hon Dover Samuels: Has the Minister received reports that secret dinners between the Māori Party and the National Party will close the gaps between iwi and the Māori Party? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: No. The member is right. That question is entirely out of order.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister then explain how the Hon Tariana Turia’s proposal to give the seabed and foreshore back to the Crown and extinguish Ngāti Porou and Whānau-a-Apanui takutai moana negotiations will close the gaps?

Madam SPEAKER: That question is also out of order.

Gerry Brownlee: How can the Minister continue to be—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You ruled my colleague Pita Paraone’s question out of order, and frankly I want to know why, because if there was to be, for example, a closing the gaps strategy different from that advocated by Labour, then it might have some features, one of which might be different ownership for the seabed and foreshore by the Crown. That is what the proposal is, and I think it is a fair question to ask. Just because the National Party does not like it does not mean it should not be heard by this Parliament. I thought my colleague seriously asked the question, and more important, he has four decades of experience on the problem—a darn sight more than most in this House.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. Both questions were ruled out of order because there is no reference to foreshore and seabed within the primary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter, Mr Peters. A new point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is a new point of order. Is there some sort of rule today that says that if the matter is not in the primary question, it may not be raised by way of a supplementary question, or that everybody must stay on the primary question and nothing else? If that is new ruling, then it has been disobeyed totally, time after time. My colleague sought to ask a question as to how, if there was different ownership, it would affect Māori wealth in the future. He asked what the economic effect would be if the foreshore and seabed were owned by Māori, and not the Crown by inference. Closing the gaps, I thought, was an economic and social strategy.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I refer him perhaps for his assistance to Speaker’s ruling 151/2, which states: “Supplementary questions must arise directly from the Minister’s reply; they must be related to it not indirectly but directly.”

Gerry Brownlee: How can he claim to have reduced inequalities between Māori and non-Māori when as at June this year Māori earned on average 30 percent less than non-Māori, and Māori are 50 percent more likely to be living on less than two-thirds of the average wage?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I will speak slowly this time. The Government acknowledges that there is a lot more to do in Māori social and economic development. I did highlight the point in my answer to the primary question that Māori income is on a steady increase, but we also acknowledge that there is a lot more to do.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Minister said that the Government was working on other initiatives to advance Māori, was one of those initiatives contemplating having the foreshore and seabed in the ownership of any group or body other than the Crown; amen?

Madam SPEAKER: I would ask that member to please leave the Chamber. I am tired of the insolence at the rulings of the Chair. I am sorry, Mr Peters. You can finish with this question, but that was totally out of order.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: As we are aware, there are negotiations—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry Mr Peters, but your comment “amen” at the end of your question was obviously a disrespectful reference to my former ruling.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: As the House is aware, currently negotiations are under way between the iwi of Whānau-a-Apanui and Ngāti Porou to determine their foreshore and seabed customary rights. I see that as a positive step forward in terms of the economic development of those two iwi. However, the foreshore and seabed bill tabled in the House by the Māori Party, intends to extinguish the blue-water rights that Te Arawa have over an area called Ōkūrei, or commonly known as Little Waihī. I am sure that the member for Waiariki does not want this to happen.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Who instructed the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri to remove its legislative function for monitoring and evaluation in 2005 and to shift resources, and can he explain to the House whether those resources were used for closing the gaps?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: There has never been a lessening on the focus of monitoring mainstream agencies in terms of delivery of services to Māori. What has happened in more recent months is that it is done now through collaboration, not through imposition.

Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister has misled the House, because the chief executive officer of Te Puni Kōkiri reported that before the Māori Affairs Committee.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Speaking to the point of order, the chief executive officer for Te Puni Kōkiri did not say that. He said that there is still a strong focus on monitoring and evaluating mainstream services through a collaborative approach.

Madam SPEAKER: I think this is a matter of debate, not a matter of order.

Gerry Brownlee: How can he claim to have significantly increased living standards for Māori when the Ministry of Health reports that Māori adults are 267 percent more likely to suffer from type 2 diabetes than non-Māori adults, and that if current Government policies remain the same, by 2020, 50 percent more Māori will suffer from type 2 diabetes, making Māori adults four times more likely than non-Māori adults to suffer from that debilitating health condition?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: As I said to the House, there is still a lot of work to be done in the area of Māori social and economic development, as the member clearly heard. The member should also realise that Māori life expectancy has increased dramatically under this Government.

Gerry Brownlee: Noting that comment, is he satisfied that a child born into a Māori family has a six times greater chance of dying of sudden infant death syndrome than if born into a non-Māori family?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: The member knows well that those statistics have been around for a very, very long time, including when that party was in Government.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did ask the Minister whether he was happy with that statistic. Simply saying that it has been around a long time is not really an answer.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, you cannot require a yes or no answer. The Minister addressed the question.

Gerry Brownlee: What contribution has he had to perverse Labour Government policies that have seen the proportion of Māori experiencing severe hardship increase by 243 percent, Māori health indicators deteriorate to such an extent as expressed today, while those in prison get underfloor heating, trips to the beach, steak and ice cream, R-rated videos, Xbox games, and high definition LCD TVs, and is prison life the new aspiration Labour has for Māori?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: To the second part of that question, absolutely not. But the member should take the time out to read the Ministry of Health’s monthly reports to the Minister of Health and to the Associate Ministers of Health highlighting the activities that they have committed to decreasing the negative statistics in all areas of Māori health.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Minister is challenging us to read those reports, can he give an undertaking in the House now to release all the reports that he has received during his time as Minister?

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, that is more a matter of a question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.

Tourist Spending—Reports

5. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: What recent reports has he received on international visitor spending?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Tourism): I am pleased to say that figures released today show that international visitor spending in New Zealand increased to $7 billion in the year to June 2006. This represents a massive increase of 16.5 percent on the previous year, or close to $1 billion. This is a huge boost for the economy and, once again, demonstrates the importance of the tourism industry to New Zealand.

Steve Chadwick: What has this Government done for the tourism industry since coming into power in 1999?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Since 1999 the Labour-led Government has established the Ministry of Tourism to enhance the whole-of-Government approach to tourism policy. We have developed the New Zealand Tourism Strategy 2010 and are currently undertaking a review. We have provided significant funding for a major expansion of the Qualmark quality grading system for tourism, and we have funded tourism infrastructure projects through the tourism facilities grant. This has emphasised the importance of the tourism industry to the economy, and this Government’s important commitment to that industry.

Health Expenditure—Wastage

6. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Is there any financial waste in the health system; if so, where?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I can confirm that over the past 2 weeks the health system has unexpectedly had to invest considerable resources to make sure children do not die from avoidable deaths, after a member of this House intentionally created ill-founded fears about the meningococcal B immunisation campaign. I am not in a position to classify that as waste, but I hope Mr Ryall feels that the political pay-off was worth the public resources that had to be spent to set the record straight in order to protect the health of children in this country.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister read this week’s Auditor-General report on the health funding package that looks at the extra taxpayer money put into the health system in recent years, and what is his reaction to the Auditor-General’s conclusion that it is not possible to say how the billions of extra dollars were ultimately spent?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Auditor-General’s report is a very detailed one, and I suggest that the member reads it all. If he did, he would find that the Ministry of Health had made well-documented decisions on the use of the health funding package. The member needs to keep in mind that district health boards and the Ministry of Health produce annual reports in which the allocation of funding is outlined, and where parliamentarians have the ability to check on that.

Maryan Street: Has the Minister received any reports on the comparative cost-effectiveness of the New Zealand health system?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have seen a report from the widely respected Commonwealth Fund that shows that New Zealand spends less per capita on health than Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany. Despite that, New Zealand’s health system is ranked second for overall quality amongst those six nations. We have one of the world’s most cost-effective health systems, but this Government believes that we can make further progress.

Barbara Stewart: Is the ministry auditing the overall effect of the primary health organisations on the primary-care budget—their cost structures, salary scales, or methods of accounting for taxpayers’ funds—if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes, a review of the system is under way and I believe that a new system will be in place next year, in 2007.

Hon Tony Ryall: How can the Minister be satisfied that taxpayers are getting value for the extra money put into health, when the Auditor-General’s report says that the Ministry of Health has no records of how district health boards specifically allocated the billions of dollars of extra funding, because the ministry says that was the responsibility of the district health boards, but when the Auditor-General asked the district health boards what the money was spent on, those boards admitted that they too were unable to say where the extra money was spent?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Although the Auditor-General’s report is detailed, it would not be the first time that we do not entirely agree with an Auditor-General’s report. There are clear lines of accountability through both the district health boards and the Ministry of Health directly back to parliamentarians, through the select committee process. I welcome that member’s question at the next review process.

Barbara Stewart: Is there any specific section in the Ministry of Health responsible for the reporting and collating of information on primary health organisations’ expenditure, costs, annual reports, and plans; if so, what is it called?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes. It is the clinical services directorate.

Hon Tony Ryall: How can the Minister and the Government assure the public that it is getting value for money in health, when if the Minister does not know where the extra money went, he cannot tell us what he got for it?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I feel very confident that we have a very efficient health system. The National Party has yet to develop a policy—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Members will be leaving this Chamber unless they keep interjections at a reasonable level.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: If we would like to use as a benchmark—as the National Party likes to do—the USA, we would note that its health system costs three times that of New Zealand per person, yet Americans die at a younger age than New Zealanders. That would indicate that we have a more efficient and more effective system delivering services for New Zealanders.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Associate Minister read the Auditor-General’s report?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have not read the Auditor-General’s report. I am advised that it is a very detailed report, and I understand that Ministry of Health officials will be looking very carefully at its recommendations—even though we may not end up agreeing with each and every one of them.

Hon Tony Ryall: How can the Minister expect his answers to be taken seriously, when he is replying to questions on a report that he has not even bothered to read though it is fundamental to his portfolio responsibilities; if he had read the report, would the Minister not know that the Auditor-General has, yet again, exposed this Government’s poor stewardship of health dollars, whereby the Minister is unable to say where the extra money is specifically going and what he is specifically providing the public in return for that money—and does that not explain why, after 6 years of a Labour Government, we can have $4 billion extra spent in health with fewer people getting operations?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: That is complete hogwash. More people are getting operations since—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister will please be seated. I cannot hear the Minister’s answer. I will be asking those members whose voices I can hear to leave the Chamber next time. They happen, unfortunately, to be sitting in the back row, and they know whom I am talking to.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: That is hogwash. More people are getting operations since this Government came into power. We have committed an additional $4 billion to the health system of this country. Each and every New Zealander knows that he or she is getting a better deal and is getting services when he or she needs them, for the most part.

Ngāti Mutunga Settlement—Calculation of Quantum

7. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: How does the Crown intend to ensure that the method of calculating the quantum of the settlement for Ngāti Mutunga will be fair in reality as well as fair in the circumstances?

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Acting Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): The Crown’s view is that the comprehensive redress package offered to Ngāti Mutunga, and accepted by them, is fair in the circumstances. The reality is that the Crown and Ngāti Mutunga acknowledge that the Crown could not afford to pay full compensation for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What explanation can the Minister provide for the Crown being unable to adequately explain the methodology for how it determined the Ngāti Mutunga settlement, and does he agree with Ngāti Mutunga that the Crown needs to demonstrate more transparency if the settlement process is to have any credibility or long-term durability?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: During the hearing of submissions in Taranaki the Ngāti Mutunga negotiators did express some concern about the process and a lack of understanding over the formula to determine the quantum. However, they were also very, very forthcoming in saying that the priority for them was in the outcome of the negotiations, because they wanted to put the grievances of the past behind them and start building a future for future generations of Ngāti Mutunga.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Yesterday during the Finance and Expenditure Committee proceedings, the Minister of Finance confirmed that the $1 billion fiscal cap imposed by National in 1995 for Treaty settlements will be exceeded; why is this the case, and how will it be funded?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I cannot answer that question in full, but who better to make that statement than the Minister of Finance?

Te Ururoa Flavell: How is the Ngāti Mutunga settlement consistent and relative to the other recent settlements, particularly given the massive breaches suffered by Ngāti Mutunga, including the entire confiscation of their tribal estate and the imprisonment of their people?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: The quantum settlement for Ngāti Mutunga was consistent with previous settlements—that of Tainui, Ngāi Tahu, and other groups that have already settled.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What the Minister gave as an answer was basically part of my question. I asked how the settlement was consistent with those other settlements, and I did not actually hear an answer.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: The quantum agreed on was relative to previous settlements.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can he confirm that the notion of a fiscal cap of $1 billion was actually abandoned well before the Labour-led Government came into office—under the National - New Zealand First coalition, from memory?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I can.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Was the predetermined settlement figure to be offered by the Crown to Ngāti Mutunga altered in any way after the Crown accepted that the total land confiscated from Ngāti Mutunga was actually 150,000 acres and not 75,000 acres; if so, by what amount; if not, why not?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: The Government had no predetermined quantum figure for Ngāti Mutunga. Those negotiations started in 1999 under a National Government.

Immigration Service—Confidence

8. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he have confidence in the New Zealand Immigration Service; if so, why?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): Yes; because it is a hard-working and conscientious department.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Precisely what is being investigated in his department, when on 10 August this year the deputy secretary of the legal and international services division of the Department of Labour wrote: “I have begun an investigation into the circumstances in which the 91 business applications were approved. I have asked an independent lawyer from a private sector law firm to manage that investigation.”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: If the member wishes to have a precise answer to a precise matter of correspondence, it would be as well for him to put it in the primary question. I shall endeavour to check and get back to him.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that 64 investor and long-term business visa applications, tabulated in a letter of 5 September 2006 under the signature of Stephen Dunstan for the Secretary of Labour, and copied to the Serious Fraud Office, were decided either on the same day they were received in 2002 or on the day following; if that is correct, were proper procedures followed?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I refer the member to my previous answer.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that 24 of those 64 investor and long-term business visa applications decided in 2002 within 32 hours of receipt were from China; if so, how would it be possible for all document verification to be completed within 32 hours?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Notwithstanding the fact that it is my pleasure to lead a very hard-working and conscientious department, I refer the member to my previous answer.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Will the inquiry, initiated during this Minister’s term, cover the allegation that a former general manager of the New Zealand Immigration Service, Mr Andrew Lockhart, removed two internal auditors who were auditing the records of the business migration branch because they were investigating documents concerning the former general manager’s wife, who was employed by the department?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I refer the member to my earlier answer, and I would say that we take a case by case approach to cases, as he does to sheep.

Madam SPEAKER: The bit at the end was not necessary. Would the Minister withdraw that last comment; it was totally irrelevant to the answer.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that two former Ministers of Immigration, Lianne Dalziel and Paul Swain, refused to investigate these matters; if so, what does the record show were their reasons for refusing to investigate such serious allegations?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I refer the member again to my previous answer, and repeat that there are a range of mechanisms by which detailed answers to such written material may be elucidated. Written and Official Information Act requests are also often used in that regard.

Climate Change Conference—Kyoto Protocol

9. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: When he attends the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Nairobi next week, what proposals will he put forward or support to encourage developing countries to accept obligations in the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Climate change is a global problem that will have serious impacts on all countries. New Zealand supports broad and balanced participation in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone should play their part. The Nairobi conference is an early stage of global discussions on future commitments beyond 2012 to address climate change. New Zealand will support measures that advance meaningful progress.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: When he says “broad and balanced”, does he agree with the principle that all people have an equal right to emit carbon into the atmosphere, and an equal responsibility to limit those emissions, a principle first put forward 10 years ago in the early Kyoto negotiations under the rather cumbersome title of “Contraction and Convergence”; if so, how will he be advocating that position at Nairobi?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I agree it would be unrealistic to expect developing countries with very low levels of emission to curb their emissions to far lower levels than industrialised countries, whilst expecting no greater efforts on the part of industrialised countries.

Darien Fenton: What is the Minister’s intended focus at bilateral meetings with Ministers of other countries at the Nairobi conference?

Hon DAVID PARKER: New Zealand is taking a lead in world-class research into reducing on-farm emissions from agriculture. My bilaterals with other countries will focus on improving international collaboration on this research, both because it is central to New Zealand’s interest, and because in helping ourselves we can also help the world beat climate change.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does he reconcile the statement by the Prime Minister that it made sense to have a more bipartisan approach on the important issue of climate change, when at the four international climate change conferences in the 1990s, National invited and included Opposition representatives in the New Zealand delegations, and in 2001 and 2003 previous Labour climate change Ministers invited an Opposition representative, but in the latest conference in Nairobi he has chosen not to include any Opposition member; why there has been the change in approach?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It would be rather strange to expect us to invite a member to a conference on Kyoto who opposes it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the letters from previous Labour climate change Ministers in both 2001 and 2003 when National’s position on climate change was no different, and also to note that this is the framework convention on climate change, which was initiated and signed by National when in Government.

Documents not tabled.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree that if New Zealand were to get even halfway to the Prime Minister’s goal of becoming carbon neutral, we would be in a very strong position to advocate for equal rights and obligations on a per capita basis, and that this would make it more likely that developing countries would take on climate change obligations too; and as well it would give us some credits to sell?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am not sure I would want to either agree or disagree with that proposition, on the hoof. I would say that in addition to the environmental benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and how that might also encourage developing countries to embrace some form of mitigation of their emissions, it would also be in New Zealand’s economic interests, because I am being told by New Zealand’s largest energy users that are multinationals, that their shareholders are telling them they should moderate their direct carbon emissions and their indirect energy-related emissions, because they see a future global cost to greenhouse gas emissions and think it is therefore in their shareholders’ interests to reduce emissions. I suggest that if that is correct for those companies, it is also true for our country.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will New Zealand be arguing at Nairobi for international bunker fuel, which is used by aircraft and ships and is a substantial emitter of carbon, to be included in nations’ Kyoto commitments to close this huge loophole, and also to avoid distorting the economics of local versus international trade?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I do not think we are taking a specific position on that. I would say that it is less important than the wider issue. For example, the “food miles” debate that was run against New Zealand, and is indeed being run against New Zealand in Europe at the moment, suggests that those countries ought not to buy our products because of the miles they travel to get there, whereas in reality the emissions embedded in those products, even when delivered that long distance, are significantly lower than are embedded in their own local produce.

New Zealand Qualifications Authority—Text Speak

10. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with New Zealand Qualifications Authority deputy chief executive Bali Haque that credit should be given to an answer in text speak if it “clearly shows the required understanding”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I agree with Bali Haque’s explanation, as given on Radio New Zealand this morning. There has been no change in the approach to the use of abbreviations. Students are actively discouraged from using abbreviations in exam answers. Where students do use abbreviations, then the examiners look for students to demonstrate their understanding of a question—i.e., if students can show an understanding and express this clearly, then they will get credit, if appropriate. If the examiner cannot understand what a student has written, or it is inappropriate use, the student will not get credit.

Hon Bill English: Does that mean that text language will be allowed or not allowed?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: What it means is that abbreviations are usually allowed in examinations, if they are appropriate, but text language would, of course, be inappropriate. Therefore, it would be of no use to the student.

Hon Bill English: When the Minister launched the new draft curriculum on 31 July does he recall saying: “There is a continued emphasis on excellence in literacy and numeracy.” and “Our education system must ensure that all students reach very high standards.”; and does he believe that his statement—that text language will be allowed—is consistent with those standards?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I recall making the statement about standards, and I understand that everybody in this House who has sat an exam will have used an abbreviation at some time when sitting those examinations. To use text language would clearly be inappropriate for a student during the course of an examination, but on this side of the House I think we would have used abbreviations such as i.e. and e.g., perhaps. Young students today may find that something that was in such popular use might be appropriate to use in an exam, but to use it throughout the exam, of course, would be inappropriate.

Ann Hartley: Is there an example of a statement from a person with a high level of qualifications that contains incorrect spelling but demonstrates that the person understands what he or she is talking about, and for which credit should be given?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes. The following statement is just one example: “This kind of pigeon English is fine for young people organising their social lives, …”. This is an example of a press statement put out today by Mr Bill English. The statement is understandable, despite “pidgin” being spelt “p-i-g-e-o-n”, as in a bird from the dove family, rather than “p-i-d-g-i-n”, as in simplified language used between persons of a different nationality. But we will give him credit.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister agree that such use of language in an exam should not get credit, nor should ridiculous abbreviations of text language; and why does he not just stop trying to be cool, and tell students that text language in exams is unacceptable?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I will explain to the member again that he would use in an exam, I am sure, abbreviations such as etc., e.g., and i.e. If a young person is explaining something to an examiner and using an abbreviation that communicates it well, then that may well be appropriate. But text speak, clearly, would be inappropriate, and that is why it is discouraged. As for the question of “cool”, I am not sure whether that member would know it if he saw it.

Hon Bill English: Now that the Minister has introduced a distinction between text abbreviations and text language, can he explain to the students of New Zealand just which versions of text language will be acceptable, and which ones will be regarded as wrong?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I will abbreviate my initial answer, because I had it in there for the member. There have been no changes to the approaches taken to abbreviations. Students using abbreviations have been trying to explain to an examiner what they are saying about a question. If they can show an understanding of it and can express the answer clearly, and if the use of language is appropriate, they will get credit. If the examiner cannot understand the answer, or if it is not appropriate, they will not get credit. That has always been the position.

Hon Bill English: Now that students have the impression that text language will be acceptable, because that is what the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has stated, how are students supposed to know what is “appropriate”, as the Minister has described it, and what is inappropriate—why does he not just clear up all that confusion by telling New Zealand students that using text language is unacceptable in National Certificate of Educational Achievement exams?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: On behalf of the students of the country, I say to the member that students are used to sitting examinations through internal assessment all year, and the rules are just the same. Abbreviations, where appropriate, have always been accepted—even when the member sat whatever exam he sat at university. I seek leave to table from the web the definitions of “pigeon” as a bird and “pidgin” as not a technical use of English.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Question No. 11 to Minister

Question, by leave, postponed.

Trade and Enterprise—Operation of Programmes

12. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister for Economic Development: Is he satisfied with the operations of all the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise programmes covered by the evaluations released over the last week?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): No.

Chris Tremain: Is a further, in-depth review necessary of the Escalator programme, which has failed to meet its capital-raising targets, has received 85 percent negative feedback in a survey or participants, and has been described by participants as a gravy train for brokers?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think some of the messages out of that evaluation are getting through.

Mark Blumsky: Is the Minister satisfied with the Beachheads programme, 4 years after its inception, when a review just completed showed that it had little impact on participating firms’ performance, and had incomplete policy objectives, and that the Ministry of Economic Development conducted little oversight of the programme’s development?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think it is too early to tell whether Beachheads will work really well. The feedback I have had from a number of individual firms is very positive, although it is fair to say that some of the people who are working in this policy area have been diverted to work through large Official Information Act requests and an extraordinary number of questions from that member.

Chris Tremain: Is the Minister satisfied with the Sector Projects programme, when the review found that there was not sufficient information available to determine whether the programme met its policy outcomes, and that the efficiency of the programme could not be measured because New Zealand Trade and Enterprise did not record staff time spent on projects?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think the honest answer to that one is that I do not know, because we do not have the information yet. I think the evaluation was done too early, and the information was incomplete, as the member has pointed out. Is it not wonderful to have a Government that is very clear and has done a whole range of evaluations? Most of those are positive, but, of course, there are one or two organisations that are not doing as well as they could.

Mark Blumsky: Is the Minister concerned that, more than 3 years after the establishment of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, the September 2006 overview report by the Ministry of Economic Development states that there is no mechanism currently in place to measure explicitly and routinely the success of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise programmes against intended policy outcomes?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes.

Bills

Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the conclusion of the first reading debate I will move that the bill be referred to the Regulations Review Committee with an instruction that the bill be finally reported back by 4 December 2006.

This is a routine annual bill to confirm and validate items of subordinate legislation that, in accordance with the confirmation and validation provisions in the Acts under which the various instruments are made, lapse at stated times unless earlier confirmed or validated by Acts of Parliament. This year the bill provides for Parliament to validate and confirm 18 Orders in Council made under eight Acts. To avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing, this bill must be enacted before the end of 2006. The 4 December report-back date will allow time for the select committee to receive explanations on the contents of the bill from the departments that administer the various orders and regulations. I am sure that, under Dr Worth’s excellent guidance, the committee will deal expeditiously with the bill.

Two of the 18 orders apply movements in the consumer price index to the rates of social security benefits, New Zealand superannuation, and war pensions.

Five orders are named under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. Three apply movements in the consumer price index to rates of excise and excise-equivalent duties on alcohol, tobacco products, and motor spirits. Two continue for a further 3 years the import and export prohibitions on toothfish.

Two of the orders are made under the Tariff Act 1988. They introduce a new tariff concession, and implement commitments on tariff reduction and removal in relation to the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement amongst Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Singapore, and New Zealand.

Six of the orders deal with commodity levies. Two replace similar orders relating to nashi Asian pears, whose order expired in July 2005, and asparagus, whose order expired in May 2006. Two relating to maize and arable crops replace one similar order that expired in July 2006, and one imposes a new levy in relation to navel oranges. These orders were voted on by the respective industry participants themselves. Each is payable to the industry organisation in order to finance activities of benefit to the industry. The sixth order concerning commodity levies extends for 5 years the existing order relating to Nelson-Marlborough dredge oysters that was due to expire in 2007. It was made at the request of the company to which the levy is payable, and it finances the enhancement and management of the relevant fishery.

Two of the orders impose biosecurity levies. One is to fund the increased cost of the primary risk assessment of imported goods by electronic screening. The other order replaces some costs prescribed under previous biosecurity regulations, and funds increased monitoring and verification activities required in relation to sea containers.

Finally, one order increases certain rates of road-user charges under the Road User Charges Act 1977. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I am grateful for the encomium offered by the previous speaker. I assure him that when this bill—if it passes this stage—is referred to the Regulations Review Committee, the committee will exercise diligence in meeting the report-back date and looking appropriately at these issues.

As the previous speaker said, this is an annual bill that confirms and validates subordinate legislation; subordinate legislation being orders and regulations made under certain Acts that provide that such subordinate legislation will lapse after a certain time unless it is confirmed or validated by Act of Parliament. In this case we are talking about orders made under eight statutes.

Just to give an example of the process, if we look at one of the statutes, the Biosecurity Act 1993, we see in section 137 provision for levies to be made from time to time by Order in Council for the purposes of wholly or partially funding a service provided or function performed by a department for the purposes of the Act. In section 138, “Orders to be confirmed”, some time frames are established that state that unless an order is confirmed, it is deemed to have been revoked by a particular period. So really the task of the committee to which this legislation is referred is to look at those orders and see whether there is appropriate justification for them to continue.

I think we all know that in the world of regulations and deemed regulations, there are large numbers of regulations and orders that probably are not required. It is a reality that, just as the statute book each year grows longer and longer, so it is with delegated legislation. It is interesting to reflect that in 1988 the Regulations Review Committee, which was then chaired by Sir Douglas Graham, conducted an inquiry into all the regulations that were in force as at 14 November 1988. The committee collected all of those regulations together, and wrote to the various Government departments and administering bodies with a series of questions along the lines of which regulations were still required, why—in a brief statement—they were required, how often they had been used over each of the past 3 years, and which ones could be revoked. And—I think to the surprise of the select committee and possibly the public who might have read the report that followed—they found that over 400 regulations could be revoked immediately.

Hon Member: Just like that.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Just like that. And that constituted 10 percent of the total of the regulations in force.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: But none of these ones.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Well, we do not know, I say to Dr Cullen, whether they looked at those particular regulations. So the select committee recommended that those regulations be revoked immediately, and they were.

To come back, though, to this bill and the confirmation and validation provisions, I note that we have orders made under the Biosecurity Act, the Commodity Levies Act, the Customs and Excise Act, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Act, the Social Security Act, the Road User Charges Act, the Tariff Act, and the War Pensions Act. There is just one subtlety in the legislation and that is the issue of confirmation on the one hand and confirmation and validation on the other.

The bill, of course, is an opportunity for Parliament to decide whether in each case the effect of the relevant sunset clauses should be avoided and the subordinate legislation continue in force. That is effected by confirmation, when the House considers that the policy that lies behind the relevant regulation continues to justify it. It is right to say that amongst the areas of lawmaking where Parliament has decided it does not wish to give the executive carte blanche in the making of regulations, but wishes to reserve to itself this extra control, such expiry provisions are appropriate.

Most subordinate legislation referred to in this bill is confirmed, but the orders made under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, the Social Security Act, the Tariff Act, and the War Pensions Act are both validated and confirmed, because the Acts under which they are made provide that they expire at a stated time unless earlier validated and confirmed. The validation, as a matter of constitutional law, is limited, as its purpose is only to prevent the expiry of those orders, and the validations that are effected do not also cure any invalidity. Finally, I say that the bill also provides that the resulting Act will bind the Crown.

I have made comment as to the number of regulations that are probably not required, and there is particular work going on at the moment in that area. In part, this work is led by the Government in—I believe—a somewhat clumsy approach reported to the Cabinet policy committee as a document entitled Quality Regulation Review—First Milestone Report. But the Regulations Review Committee is itself carrying out a detailed inquiry that will look at this issue. The inquiry will also look at mechanisms to provide ongoing and systematic review of regulations, and at an issue that I think is increasingly important, which is the provisions in the Cabinet Step by Step Guide requiring regulatory impact statements. If one looks at those particular provisions, one can see that they are so shrouded with exceptions that regulatory impact statements are often not forthcoming—or, if they are forthcoming, they are not sufficiently enlightening. Although the Regulations Review Committee’s jurisdiction is restricted to delegated legislation, it is in that area of delegated legislation that significant compliance cost is imposed.

National supports this bill and its passage to the relevant select committee.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). As so eloquently described by Dr Worth—and Dr Cullen, of course—this bill covers a lot of areas where legislation needs to be passed from time to time in order for some regulations to continue to exist. I have to say that I used to be a great fan of sunset clauses in legislation, but when one is confronted with legislation such as this, and one thinks that sunset clauses could bring legislation such as this to Parliament every week of every month of every year, it sort of puts one off a little bit.

In this regard, because I am a generalist by nature and not a detail person, and because I tend to be somewhat dismissive of people who go through the fine print, I must give credit to the Regulations Review Committee. Its members go through this stuff, they are the ones that make sure there are no problems in it, and they are the ones who sign it off. I take this opportunity while there are not too many people in the House to thank the members of the select committee, because they fulfil a very necessary job in this Parliament. It is not something that a generalist by nature should be involved in; it is more the sort of thing that a person with some legal training should be involved in. So Mr Worth, who is a sterling member of that select committee, is just the right sort of person to go through it.

This bill covers a lot of things. New Zealand First is in favour of it, and we look forward to its passage through the House.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. As we do when we are in Parliament, I try to get to grips with the bills that we consider. For this one, I started with the term “subordinate”. It is an interesting word. It can mean to “belong to a lower or inferior class or rank”, and to be “subject to the authority or control of another”. The Māori Party, a party that—I think—prides itself on its commitment to upholding due access to justice and to defending and protecting human rights, is immediately interested in any legislation which unashamedly sets out to create hierarchies of power and control.

Here we turn to this bill to confirm and validate the deliberate minimising of power and control as it relates to biosecurity, to road-user charges, to tariffs, and to nashi—Asian pears. What do we do with a long list of regulatory changes, literally apples and oranges, oysters and alcohol, all blended in with the odd lump-sum payment here and there? The suite of subordinate legislation proposals raises the fundamental question about the rapid path of regulation that this Government is following—government by regulation. The major concern we see with this bill is the reality of so much regulation that escapes the scrutiny of Parliament. The detail and the scope of the significant regulatory proposals identified in this bill warn us as to the obvious likelihood that similar proposals may sit within the Regulations Review Committee and never make it here, to the House.

As to the points of detail in this bill, the Māori Party has considered four significant issues that prevent us from supporting the package in its entirety. The excise and excise-equivalent duties clash front on with our intentions as a party to introduce a member’s bill to make the production, manufacture, and sale of tobacco products illegal. The Māori Party was really heartened by the TV3 poll in April this year, which reported that 52 percent of New Zealanders are also in favour of getting tobacco out of Aotearoa. Our aim is to eliminate tobacco from Aotearoa by 10 December 2010, 6 years after bars and restaurants went smoke-free. With this aim in mind we therefore strongly oppose the amendment in the bill relating to the indexation of tobacco products.

The second area is the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order. The Government needs to read its own reports. If it did, priority would be placed on immediate action to address the increase that has been identified in the proportion of the population experiencing severe hardship. Page after page of the Government’s Social Report 2006, released in August, revealed that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The 2006 report described the proportion of the population with low incomes as substantially higher in 2004 than in 1998. Nineteen percent of that population is now living below the 60 percent poverty threshold, compared with 12 percent in 1998.

In light of this the Māori Party recommends that the rates of benefits and allowances order needs amendment, rather than validation and confirmation of what we consider to be basically invalid payments in the greater scheme of whānau well-being. What is the point of a fat budget surplus of $11.5 billion if it is not being gainfully applied to support the most vulnerable members of our society?

The third area of concern is in relation to the contentious issues around tariff. When we think about tariff, we think it could be useful to apply some analysis against the genuine progress index. If one measures any progress against a full range of social, economic, ecological, and environmental indicators, we are likely to achieve a more comprehensive and accurate assessment than current measures based on GDP. Under such an analysis the Māori Party will support fair trade agreements rather than agreements that position Aotearoa as a market for cheap goods made by companies that exploit workers, the environment, and indigenous lands and people. If the recent fascination by both Labour and National with climate change is anything to go by, one would think they would be open to possibilities of doing things differently. We cannot address climate change if the rampant consumerism and consumption that is part and parcel of tariff reductions is not addressed.

The fourth significant area of concern relates to the War Pensions (Rates of Pensions, Lump Sum Payments, and Allowances) Order. The Māori Party has consistently been raising issues in this House about the legitimate and longstanding grievances of Viet Nam veterans. We have risen in this House to alert our colleagues to the need to support Viet Nam veterans who were exposed to dangerous levels of dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange; the need to respond to the call for those veterans to receive the full medical treatment and monitoring they deserve; the right for the families of those affected by Agent Orange to access free and suitable health-care for their children and grandchildren for at least seven generations; the differences in pension payments and compensation under the War Pensions Act and the Accident Compensation Corporation clearly disadvantage former servicemen; and, indeed, the call for justice for all.

Bruce Isbister, in his work on the tortuous processes of Veterans Affairs New Zealand, summed it all up when he described the case of veterans in the following way: “Their earning capacity has been taken from them by their service to country, consigned to an income akin to poverty line and exacerbated by blatant discrimination. Many veteran pensioners have to sell family assets to stay afloat, causing huge disruption to themselves and their families.” Sixty percent of Viet Nam veterans are Māori, yet to add insult to injury, in spite of the disadvantages of and obstacles to their rehabilitation that I have just referred to, the simple wish that Māori veterans raised to hold a hui on marae was rejected outright by the independent joint working party.

There is no excuse for the rights of Viet Nam veterans not to be heard. We know now, tragically, that Agent Orange contains dioxin, which has been found to have serious health side-effects including cancers and birth defects. Just 2 days ago the Government admitted that in-the-field support for children of Viet Nam veterans is inadequate. The Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, Mr Rick Barker, declared in this House that veterans and their families do not have the extent of field support that they should, and the Government wants to address that. Well, here is the perfect opportunity to do just that, and the Government is choosing not to do so. The War Pensions (Rates of Pensions, Lump Sum Payments, and Allowances) Order could have been amended to assess the discriminatory impact of the differences in pension payments and compensation available for injured soldiers under the War Pensions Act.

There are some positive passages in this bill. The Māori Party supports the recommendation to confirm the Road User Charges (Rates) Order as we support the concept behind road-use charges, and would further recommend that they be spent on transport issues, rather than going into the consolidated account. We are also very supportive of the changes made to confirm the Biosecurity (Risk Screening Levy) Order and the Biosecurity (Shipping Container Levy) Order. But those positive initiatives are overshadowed by the substantive concerns we have with the four areas I described previously.

Unfortunately, it would appear that the concept of subordinate as meaning a lower or inferior class or rank has been applied in this bill, to the detriment of our Viet Nam veterans and to our most impoverished children and families. We envisage a pool of cheap overseas labour, subject to the authority or control of the Labour Government, let in through the new tariff laws, and we witness more moves to let the health of New Zealanders just go up in smoke. As a result of such significant misgivings, the Māori Party will not support this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 3

Māori Party 3.

Abstentions 6

Green Party 6.

Bill read a first time.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be referred to the Regulations Review Committee and that it be an instruction to the committee that it finally report the bill back by 4 December 2006.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I move, That the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I would like to say that this bill is an important milestone both for Ngāti Mutunga and for the Crown. The bill addresses the significant and longstanding grievances suffered by Ngāti Mutunga as a result of actions of the Crown. The bill enables both parties to move forward together in a positive Treaty relationship.

I encourage each and every member of this House to read the preamble to the bill with care. The bill sets out a formal Crown apology to Ngāti Mutunga for the Crown’s past dealings with Ngāti Mutunga, which breached the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. The preamble records that the Crown profoundly regrets, and unreservedly apologises for, the confiscation of Ngāti Mutunga land. This confiscation was unconscionable. The preamble also records that the Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises for its unconscionable actions at Parihaka. I note that it was 125 years ago, on 5 November, that Crown troops occupied Parihaka and arrested its peaceful inhabitants. I would also reiterate the comments of my parliamentary colleague Mahara Okeroa in his first reading speech, when he stated that the Crown did not come alone.

The deed of settlement and this bill will enable Ngāti Mutunga to build a stronger ongoing relationship with the Crown and will help to dispel the sense of grief and loss Ngāti Mutunga has suffered. In summary, as well as a formal apology to Ngāti Mutunga, the settlement provides for financial redress of $14.9 million and cultural redress. That includes the vesting of 10 sites of cultural significance, totalling approximately 168 hectares, with relevant provisions to protect the natural values of the sites and public access where appropriate, and an acknowledgement by the Crown of the unique and enduring relationship that Ngāti Mutanga has with its land in its area of interest.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered the bill and has submitted its commentary on it to the House. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed with minor amendments of an editorial and a technical nature. I note that the committee heard two submissions, both of which were in support of the bill. In its commentary on the bill, the committee highlighted two key concerns expressed by Ngāti Mutunga’s submissions to the committee. In terms of the fairness of the quantum, the committee noted the concerns expressed by Ngāti Mutunga about how the Crown valued Ngāti Mutunga’s claim and how it arrived at a quantum figure. The committee said that it did not believe that the settlement was a fair assessment of the severity of the breach. First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge that it is not possible to fully compensate Ngāti Mutunga for all the losses and prejudice that Ngāti Mutunga has suffered. If claimant communities insisted on full compensation for what has been lost, there would be no settlements, and there would be no resolution to historical grievances.

I acknowledge that the people of Taranaki and of New Zealand generally have benefited from the land and other resources confiscated and otherwise alienated from Ngāti Mutunga. However, what has been negotiated and agreed with Ngāti Mutunga is a figure that is based on the severity of the breaches suffered by Ngāti Mutunga and relativity with previous benchmarks for other similar claims. I respect the committee’s view but do not agree with it. The Crown’s redress package as a whole is an offer that is fair in the circumstances, and it has been developed and agreed with Ngāti Mutunga. Ngāti Mutunga said in its submission to the committee that it is a pragmatic iwi and that settling this claim is another part of Ngāti Mutunga getting on with life so that the iwi can grow.

The committee referred to Ngāti Mutunga’s concern about the costs it had incurred related to the disestablishment of the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority and the transfer of its assets to the newly established Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga. The process of establishing and disestablishing private trusts is not an appropriate use of public legislation. Settlement legislation addresses matters necessary to achieve the settlement that cannot be achieved with certainty under non-legislative processes. The Crown’s funding policy has recently been reviewed to include a sum for costs associated with governance, and Ngāti Mutunga has benefited from the review, receiving an additional $34,000. This Government will continue to take opportunities as appropriate to consider ways in which to make the settlement process and associated costs for claimants more efficient.

In conclusion, I say settlement negotiations have occurred between Ngāti Mutunga and the Crown over a number of years in order to reach this important point. The Crown considers the settlement to be a fair and reasonable settlement in the circumstances. The people of Ngāti Mutunga have ratified it, with some 95 percent of them in favour of it. The public have now had the opportunity to make submissions on the bill through the select committee process. I encourage all members to support the passage of this bill through the House. Kia ora.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): The National Party will be supporting the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill, but I want to make a number of comments before we start.

Might I first acknowledge the long struggle that the people of Ngāti Mutunga have had since the events of Parihaka the century before last. It seems strange to me to describe the time of that event as being in the century before last, because it happened only some 75 years before I was born. Sometimes I think we forget just how short our history in this country is. There is no doubt that many young New Zealanders now look upon the historic event of Parihaka with quite a degree of pride in the way in which the passive resistance was carried out, and with some shame at the way in which those people who were protesting their own rights were so forcibly ejected from their lands. It is relevant, in discussing this bill’s ratification, that we remember those events, because the oral history of Ngāti Mutunga has conveyed the circumstances of those events to young people in the iwi today just as strongly as any of the whakapapa prior to that time has been conveyed to them.

I bring that up because the Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said that today’s claim has been ratified by 95 percent of those eligible to do so. That is not right. The reality is that some 1,300 people were able to vote for or against this claim, and only just over 600 chose to do so. It is true that of those 600-odd, 94 percent said yes, but we can argue that that does not necessarily constitute a majority of the iwi. This causes me concern, because a grievance quite rightly has been held by the iwi over these last 140-odd years—130-odd years, I should say; I do not want to make myself sound too old—and there is no doubt that from today the story will continue to be carried on in the generations ahead of us. It would be unfortunate if in a future time some of those young people were able to say: “Well, my ancestors didn’t vote for that, so how can I be included in this full and final settlement?”. I want to make it clear and put it on the record that the National view is that this is problematic, but we accept that given the opportunity put before the people, it is reasonable to assume that those who did not choose to vote were, in fact, choosing for the settlement. In other words, their non-vote was an acceptance of the arrangement.

We should also remember in that context that any treaty settlement is only as good as what can be offered at the time, and never really reflects the great losses that some of these iwi suffered. In the case of Ngāti Mutunga, at least 75,000 undisputed acres were confiscated from them because they were considered to be in rebellion, when, as I said before, the history of Parihaka would show that that was hardly a reasonable conclusion.

The bill acknowledges a number of cultural sites for Ngāti Mutunga. It requires that the Geographic Board consult with Ngāti Mutunga over names in that particular area, it sets aside some particular parts of the rohe for their exclusive use at various times, and it gives the opportunity for the iwi to pick up subsequent properties at an agreed valuation should they become surplus to Crown requirements. That is in addition to the $14 million of cash in compensation. National members say to Ngāti Mutunga that this settlement is a significant step forward. Its acceptance by the tribe is generous given the circumstances it was put through, and that at least has to be acknowledged.

The issue of governance from this point on, which was raised by the Associate Minister, is an interesting one. We have received from Ngāti Mutunga a proposal that their transition from an iwi authority to a private trust be put into this legislation in order to facilitate it. We will consider that document over the coming weeks before we go into the Committee stage, but I make the point that under the current structure that Ngāti Mutunga has, there is no legislative impediment to their moving to the new structure. There are some legal requirements, and those requirements will have a cost, but, as the Minister said, much of that cost has been met by the extra grant that the Crown made to the iwi in the settlement process.

I also ask why any organisation in this country that has been brought together to collectively advance the betterment of the people for whose benefit it exists would want to be bound by statute. Why does Ngāti Mutunga want to have the Parliament of New Zealand decide what its iwi structure and organisation should be? Surely that is a choice for the 2,000-odd members of this iwi. I ask the leaders of Ngāti Mutunga who have advanced this Supplementary Order Paper idea to give us an answer to that over the next few days. I do not think there is any advantage in their accepting from the Crown, after so many years, a cash settlement—with all the other bits that go with it—that will allow the iwi to be more self-determining and more able to do things for the people who have a claim upon that iwi, then binding themselves immediately into an organisational structure determined by this House.

As members we regularly have before us private bills from other organisations throughout the country whose governance organisation is statutorily confirmed. As time moves on, that arrangement often does not fit, so those organisations come here to ask us to give them new legislation, free them from those shackles, and let them go on their way. By and large, that is what happens. So I think the leaders of Ngāti Mutunga need to think very, very carefully about whether they really want that proposal to be advanced, because there is much greater opportunity if the organisation, which in this case is Ngāti Mutunga, is freed from the clutches—or the claws, if you like; the direct leash—of this House, and that is also much more relevant to self-determination,.

National looks forward to the Committee stage of this bill. There are a number of points that I am sure both sides of the House will wish to make as we progress towards a conclusion. This reading marks a further step on the way for Ngāti Mutunga in a process that started in 1996, and is now, after 10 years, looking as if it may soon reach some conclusion. I am pleased to state again that National will support this settlement bill—albeit with our reservations about the mandating process.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour): I take this opportunity to take a call in this second reading of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill, in support of that bill, and as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee this gives me the opportunity to raise some of the issues we were faced with in our deliberations on this bill.

I thought three essential components were actually necessary to the bill reaching this point and, obviously, in talking about the bill’s agreed settlement surrounding these historical claims. I define that in three categories. The first is in relation to the parties. There has to be some willingness in relation to negotiating within the spirit of cooperation, simply because in these historical grievances there is a lot of hurt involved, and there is a lot of resolution sought. On that basis, the spirit of cooperation becomes very important while negotiating in that frame of mind towards seeking a settlement resolve. I recall, of the two submitters in support of this bill, that Ngāti Mutunga made it very clear to the select committee that they were pragmatic in their thinking, and felt because of that that it was necessary to reach that point so that iwi could move on. Their having embraced that value and principle suggested to me, as chair of the committee, that there was a need on their part to, I suppose, step over some historical barriers, in order to achieve this settlement.

Having said that, I tell members that in relation to negotiation it is about two parties coming together—the other party, obviously, being the Crown—and about the Crown having to complement that attitude in some way, which can be difficult, given the circumstances. The Crown, in fulfilling its responsibilities, has had to ensure that it was gaining the trust and the confidence of the iwi group, so that they could manage this process to indeed arrive at a deed of settlement in the first instance, then arrive at this bill at this time. If we consider the history of the claim, we see that in the first instance it was submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal in 1990. From there the Crown picked up the claim, I think in 1996, and took it from that point on to reach a deed of settlement. In those negotiations, I think it is important to acknowledge the relationship that has been built between Ngāti Mutunga and the Crown over these issues.

The second important component I have found, in relation to the settlement being a prosperous one, is the elements of the package. We heard from the Minister Mita Ririnui earlier about some of those, but I would like to try to identify a few more of them. The original deed of settlement included commercial and financial redress with an aggregate value of over $14 million, and that aggregate value included a cash settlement amount of over $14 million, of which $400,000 had already been paid to the iwi authority in advance to assist with negotiations.

The components of the package include a right of first refusal, in favour of the trustees, to buy at market value certain surplus Crown-owned properties and the deeds of recognition in relation to 12 statutory areas. It includes a shellfish right of first refusal, under which the Crown must offer the trustees a certain percentage of quota, with specified shellfish and quota management, and the appointment of the trustees to act as an advisory committee to the Minister of Fisheries. I suppose that is for the Minister to give some recognition to, and permission for, the customary non-commercial interests of Ngāti Mutunga. There is additional fisheries-related redress, including a prohibition on the taking of certain species for commercial purposes within the area.

The package includes a commitment that at the request of the trustees, officials from the Ministry for the Environment will run a workshop on preparing an iwi management plan. There is an acknowledgement that the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister of Local Government have written to the Taranaki Regional Council and the New Plymouth District Council, encouraging them to enter into a moratorium of understanding, or similar document, with the trustees in relation to interaction between the council and Ngāti Mutunga.

There is also an acknowledgment that the Minister of Conservation has written to the Taranaki-Wanganui Conservation Board, encouraging the board to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the trustees; an acknowledgment that the Minister of Conservation has written to the Taranaki Fish and Game Council, encouraging the council to enter into a memorandum of understanding; and an acknowledgment by the Crown of the unique and enduring relationship that Ngāti Mutunga has with the land in its area of interest. So I do believe that, as a second part of this package, the elements of settlement are quite important in terms of firming up whether this settlement will be long-lasting.

The third part of it is quite important, as well. It is the recognition of the grievance and the historical problems through the apology from the Crown. I suppose, in some respects, an apology represents some spiritual moving on, as well. The Crown’s acknowledgment of the grievances—its apology—is the sealing, I think, towards ensuring that the settlement is long-lasting. It allows Ngāti Mutunga, as it submitted to the select committee, to move on and get on with running the business of the iwi for the future. It gives me great delight to be part of the process, particularly in this process that gives recognition for this settlement. As I said earlier, I take the opportunity to take the stand in support of this bill.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am very pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. I have had the privilege of taking calls in the debates on a number of settlement bills in my 10 years in Parliament—although it does seem that progress has slowed in the last 6 years. None the less, when the Labour Government finally gets settlement bills to this House, I am very pleased to take part in the debate. I just want to say “tēnā koutou” to those of Ngāti Mutunga, and others who have an interest in their settlement, who are here in the gallery today; also to my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, albeit we are from different parties.

Very, very often in these matters we tend to demonstrate, whether or not we like to admit it, that Māori ties are longstanding, historical, and binding. They are enduring. All of us Māori MPs have ties that were in existence when we came into this Parliament, and they will remain and endure long after we leave. Actually, as soon as some of our Pākehā colleagues understand that, we might make a lot of progress in this place.

In essence, even though on the face of it the bill is a simple one, in that it follows the format of previous legislation, and even though there is a big mamae, or hurt, in the hearts of the iwi to settle, there is also the wish on the part of Ngāti Mutunga to move forward. So, as I think I said in the first reading, the leaders of the iwi made the decision that it was time to move on.

It is a privilege when one is in this place and has had the opportunity to move around New Zealand and participate in the hui of our people—people of all description—to see the impact a settlement has on tribes who have settled to date. For a lot of reasons, it is always great to see progress on settlement bills such as this one.

I want to raise two matters in relation to the select committee process. The first is the definition of Ngāti Mutunga. This issue of definition always comes up, and it will continue to come up because many Māori have reservations or anxieties—I certainly do—about who the settling iwi are as finally defined in a piece of legislation. The Office of Treaty Settlements, the Crown, requires that Ngāti Mutunga tikanga be overridden by a number of Acts, including the Adoption Act. In a sense, for many Māori, that is anathema. It is an absolute no-no. The reason is that inheritance in Te Ao Māori proceeds on the basis of genealogical ties—blood ties—and adoption, in the traditional way, very often does not include blood relationships. We have come to accept that this will become part of settlements, but it does not mean to say that we all like it.

Sure, there is a point at which the Crown can say that these settlements were negotiated with iwi and that the iwi are happy, and the Crown is happy to a greater or lesser degree, but they are always pepper-potted with various provisions that essentially cut across tikanga—in this case, Ngāti Mutunga tikanga. However, it is there. The wishes of Ngāti Mutunga are overridden by the fact that the definition of who they are includes children who are adopted getting the same rights as those who were born and bred Ngāti Mutunga. That is one point.

The other point is the matter that my colleague Gerry Brownlee referred to, and about which National may propose a Supplementary Order Paper. The issue is one that revolves round the Crown’s requirement, which is a reasonable one—and I am not saying that this is just the Crown in its current form, because this was developed when National was in Government—that claimant groups have an established governance entity to receive and manage their settlement assets and that this entity must be representative, accountable to the claimant community, and have transparent decision-making and dispute resolution processes.

Some claimant groups, namely those who settled under the previous National Government and National - New Zealand First Government, have used private legislation to fulfil this requirement. But currently, it seems to be the policy of the Labour Government that they are not supportive of this and so the reality is that Ngāti Mutunga have to go through this pretty convoluted process of disestablishing their current tribal entity and going through the cost, time, and effort in the process that that entails. Really, their desired course was that private legislation would be available to them in the way that it was available to Tainui; Ngāi Tahu, with their Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act; to Ngāti Awa, who also had Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act, and one under the current Government in the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act. They have been denied this; instead they were given a slightly increased sum to offset some of the costs of disestablishing their rūnanga, but ultimately it does seem they have been somewhat discriminated against by not being given the availability of private legislation, which invariably, on the face of it, makes the process a lot simpler.

I want to flag that, and Gerry Brownlee certainly flagged it. He did say, though, that he would like to know why Ngāti Mutunga are asking for a Supplementary Order Paper that accommodates their wish. Basically it boils down to a significant saving in cash in the transaction costs.

It is not about the establishment of an entity bound to Parliament; most definitely it is not that. I would not have a part of it if it were. I know that they are smart enough not to want that. So it is an issue about the significant transaction costs, acknowledging the contribution that Office of Treaty Settlements has made, and an ease of process that ultimately seems to be much more sensible than what they are being asked to do now.

This is a phase that gets us closer to the third reading of this bill. I hope it is the Government’s intention to see that occur before the end of the year—that would be great. It would add to the things that make a parliamentarian feel good when coming to the end of a parliamentary year. So I would like to feel good. National will certainly support the timely passage of the bill to its third reading. As I say, I hope it is the Government’s intention to do that. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe Madam Speaker; tēnā anō tātou o te Whare nei. Engari i mua i te haere tonu o te wāhanga i riro mai ki a au, e mihi tonu ki tēnā o ngā hunga mai i Ngāti Mutunga, koutou i kawe mai i tēnei kaupapa i mua i te aroaro o te Whare nei. Nā reira, tēnā koutou. Ā, tēnā hoki koutou o Ngāti Mutunga e noho tonu i te wā kāinga, i whakarongo mai i ēnei o ngā kōrero i puta mai i roto o te Whare i te rā nei. Nā reira, tēnā koutou.

Madam Assistant Speaker, by way of explanation, I acknowledge not only yourself and members of the House but also those of Ngāti Mutunga who are in the precincts of this Chamber and those who are at home listening to this debate.

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say it is a pleasure to be able to participate in the second reading of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill. The bill is a continuation of the whole settlement process involving Treaty of Waitangi claims.

What is more pleasurable about this particular bill is that it will help to bring some closure to the events of the 19th century that saw the people of Ngāti Mutunga, and, of course, other iwi of Taranaki, experience one of the darkest hours in the history of our country. In respect of this claim and other Taranaki claims, the Waitangi Tribunal commented that there may be no others where as many Treaty breaches had equivalent force and effect over a comparable time. I also reiterate what I said during the first reading of this bill, which was that any latter-day settlement will not change the events of the past.

However, what is expected of Treaty settlement legislation is that it will help to compensate claimants, such as Ngāti Mutunga, by providing some form of redress, both financial and, of course, cultural. I say that in the context of the view expressed by the Waitangi Tribunal that “Generous reparation policies are needed to remove the prejudice to Maori, to restore the honour of the Government, to ensure cultural survival, and to re-establish effective interaction between the Treaty partners.”

We heard comments from the member from the National Party who alluded to the issue of the impact that the Adoption Act will have on the future identity of those who can claim, or will be able to claim, descent from Ngāti Mutunga. I need to support the comments that she made, because when we are talking about any particular Māori hapū or iwi, we are actually talking about whakapapa—genealogy—and we are talking about blood genealogy. Unfortunately—or fortunately, depending on people’s viewpoint—the Adoption Act does not necessarily provide for that, unless the adoptee is a member of the wider whānau.

The second reading of this bill progresses the claims made by Ngāti Mutunga—that is, the descendants of Mutunga—and follows the consideration of submissions made to the Māori Affairs Committee. As a matter of history, the day that the committee met, 6 September this year, was 1 day after the 140th anniversary of the confiscation of the lands that have led us to the House today. With the exception of one submitter, whose opposition was to a clause that provides for the vesting of the fee simple estate in reserved land presently under its purview, all submitters were in support of the bill. The particular submitter that was opposed to part of the bill was the New Plymouth District Council, which was concerned that its proprietary interest would be a lesser interest than the interest it currently holds. The support for the bill was further evidenced by the iwi ballot to accept the negotiated settlement and the new body to accept the proceeds from the settlement. I say that, notwithstanding the comments made by the Opposition spokesperson on Māori affairs. I suggest we will never ever get it perfect in terms of having 100 percent support for any settlement that iwi representatives enter into on behalf of their iwi.

During the hearing of submissions on the bill, representatives from Ngāti Mutunga, although having completed a deed of settlement, entered into negotiations and accepted that the settlement was “fair in the circumstances”, expressed some disquiet about elements of the final settlement. Not the least of that disquiet was about the formula used by the Crown negotiators to arrive at the quantum that was used to reach this settlement. They asserted that the total area of Ngāti Mutunga’s land that was originally confiscated actually amounted to 150,000 acres. That figure was confirmed on a digital calculation. However, for the purposes of this and other Taranaki claims, the Crown has used calculations drawn from the Sim Commission evidence and findings as a source of information in developing the quantum offer.

Another point of disquiet was the apparent reluctance to provide the claimants with the full formula used to arrive at the quantum for this claim. An earlier speaker alluded to that issue. We did, however, ascertain that the size or population of an iwi contributes to the overall quantum for each claim, notwithstanding the value or the size of the confiscation, or the breach of the Treaty, that affected that particular iwi. It was also suggested by Ngāti Mutunga—and I think this does have some credibility—that had its negotiators, or tribal representatives, included people with a high profile, then perhaps the quantum would have been more favourable to Ngāti Mutunga. I say that as someone who comes from an iwi group—a hapū, some might say—that does not necessarily have people of the ilk that I described. Probably that will have some impact when we come to this House with our settlement.

Notwithstanding all of that, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga did stress that the settlement quantum was fair in the circumstances, or in context, but that it did not regard it as fair in reality. Its desire to accept this settlement for the sake of its future was, it considered, practical and pragmatic. An earlier speaker referred to the pragmatism that was exercised by the negotiators for Ngāti Mutunga. They ought to be lauded, but because of their youthful age compared with other negotiators acting on behalf of other tribes, I suggest to the House that their acceptance of what has been offered to Ngāti Mutunga will be a load that not only will they have to bear but also all their descendants will have to bear in the years to come. As the people of Ngāti Mutunga reflect on this settlement, none of us need to guess who will get the blame if there is any criticism of the settlement.

From a political party viewpoint and to ensure there is consistency on our part, I want to refer to the inclusion in the bill of references to the terms “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” or “Treaty of Waitangi and its principles”. As the House well knows, my colleague Doug Woolerton has sponsored a member’s bill, which has been referred to a select committee, to have references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi deleted from the 30-odd pieces of legislation in which they appear at the moment. When I raised this issue regarding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi at the select committee hearing with the applicants, I was led to understand from them that the principles were not an issue for them but rather the issue was the fact that there were, indeed, breaches of the Treaty. That then gives rise to the question of why it has been so important for the Crown to include references to Treaty principles in any settlement. New Zealand First has always maintained that in the absence of any clear definition of Treaty principles, and given their absence from the Treaty itself, the failure of anyone, particularly Māori, to request that the non-existent principles be included in legislation, and the fact that the term was originally inserted to provide a mere flourish to the State-Owned Enterprises Act, we do not see any need to include references to those principles. I signal to the House that during the Committee stage we will certainly be issuing a Supplementary Order Paper to seek the deletion of those references from this bill.

Notwithstanding that, New Zealand First will certainly support this bill moving to the next stage of the process. Kia ora.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): On behalf of my colleague Metiria Turei and the Green Party, I congratulate Ngāti Mutunga on their settlement. Although we state regularly our objection to Government policy on the settlement process, there is no doubt that extraordinary work and effort by the iwi have gone into this settlement, and we acknowledge and applaud that work.

Ngāti Mutunga is one of the eight Taranaki iwi to bring their settlement to the House. Their history, similarly, is one of dispossession and disenfranchisement at the hands of the New Zealand settler Government, which unlawfully confiscated their lands and imprisoned their people. The confiscations were indiscriminate, and the entirety of Ngāti Mutunga’s rohe was stolen from them. The compensation process established to mitigate the thefts was never implemented. Ngāti Mutunga rightly supported the acts of passive resistance organised by the prophets Te Whiti and Tohu at Parihaka. The subsequent military invasion of Parihaka led to the destruction of homes, the confiscation of assets like stock, imprisonment, and the forced removal of some 1,600 women, men, and children. Māori were effectively made refugees in their own country. It was one of the most shameful episodes in our history.

During the select committee process for this bill, there were no objections to this settlement. I thank those who made submissions, particularly the rūnanga and negotiators for Ngāti Mutunga. Their submission was very powerful. I will refer to two issues they raised.

The first issue was around the quantum of the settlement. Ngāti Mutunga raised very serious concerns about the quantum effectively being a fait accompli. When they talked to the Office of Treaty Settlements about the quantum, the office refused to reveal how it had come to the initial amount. It told the committee that it does not go into a negotiation with a quantum in mind, but after further questioning it conceded that it does have a figure as a starting point. But the office set it all up before the negotiation. In the case of Ngāti Mutunga, the initial figure proposed by the office changed by only a fraction in the final settlement. The office argued that commercial sensitivity prevented it from disclosing how it came to the initial figure. That is not good enough. The office must demonstrate clear and transparent processes for determining its initial offer. To do anything less puts the claimants at a very serious disadvantage and makes the process a pay-off, not a negotiation.

The second issue was a reflection on the phrase “fair in the circumstances”. Although the iwi were prepared to accept that statement in the settlement as a pragmatic concession, it is clear that “fair in the circumstances” really means “in accordance with the political circumstances”, not what is just. Again, this creates a fallacy around the settlements being a genuine negotiation for the purpose of righting serious wrongs and providing restitution. We must remember that Māori are extremely generous in accepting these settlements. Like Taranaki iwi before them, Ngāti Mutunga have agreed to accept less than they would otherwise be entitled to for the significant losses they have suffered. They have agreed to cooperate with the Government, and within a Government process that does not recognise their tikanga but requires them to operate within a Pākehā framework. Only about 1 percent of the potential value of compensation is paid in Treaty settlements, and any initiatives designed to lift Māori to any kind of equal footing with the rest of the community are considered by far too many politicians in this House as being too generous.

The Green Party has in the past been very clear that but for the work of the iwi in concluding these settlements, and the costs in time, money, and people that this awful process requires, we would vote against settlements. We remain in complete opposition to a process by which the Government dictates the way in which things should be done in the tangata whenua domain, and in complete opposition to a process by which the wronged party is expected to submit to terms imposed by the wrongdoer.

The Greens believe that the Government should develop with Māori a diversity of models for restitution that is premised on the tino rangatiratanga of hapū as the first principle. Clearly, hapū must not be punished for choosing not to participate in a Crown process that is extensively designed for their benefit but that fails to recognise their needs and concerns. Crown policy could be changed to engage with individual hapū, as set out in Te Tiriti. The Crown could engage in a resolution process that focuses more closely on ongoing relationships, and less on fiscal and time constraints. It could accept alternative models through resolution that are determined by Māori themselves. This method of dealing with injustices of the past could achieve a real resolution. Meanwhile, we will be voting for this reading of the Ngāti Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker; kia ora tātou. E te Raukura, e te Maunga Tītōhea, nau mai, hara mai ki te Whare nei.

[Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker, and greetings to us. Welcome to you, the Raukura and Mount Tītōhea, welcome to this House.]

The timing of select committee hearings is often simply a matter of scheduling. But this was not the case with Ngāti Mutunga. Wednesday, 6 September 2006 was a marker in Ngāti Mutunga history. It was the first time that Ngāti Mutunga had ever dealt directly with an arm of Parliament. It was also on that exact day 141 years earlier that the Crown had wrongfully confiscated all of Ngāti Mutunga’s land. And what was the nature of the argument put by Ngāti Mutunga on this day of all days? The argument is captured in the following words: “Ultimately Ngati Mutunga’s concerns fell on deaf ears and we were put in the position of having to cede to the Crown’s view”.

So what does it do to a people, who for 141 years have suffered the consequences of confiscation and military assault, to be greeted by a Government that says: “Here it is; take it or dip out.”? As one of the iwi of Taranaki whānui, Ngāti Mutunga lives every day with the aftermath of land deprivation and disempowerment. Having married into the Taranaki people and lived there for around 6 years—a very short period of time when one considers what has happened in Taranaki regarding confiscation—I heard regularly how the people feel about muru me te raupatu—confiscation. You see, they sing about it, they haka about it—confiscation is etched as part of their history. Mr Mahara Okeroa knows their songs; he is from there—from Waitara, from Parihaka, which are symbols of the legacy of land confiscation. Every day on the drive from Urenui to Ngāmotu in New Plymouth, members of Ngāti Mutunga face the impact of perpetual leases, and the promises of the reserves made in the confiscations of the 1860s that are still not given effect.

The Taranaki situation is unique. In the 1996 Taranaki report, the Waitangi Tribunal concluded: “It is a further consequence of this extraordinary record of expropriation and deprivation that there is not one hectare of Taranaki land that is now held entirely on Maori terms and by Maori rules. All that could have been done was done to destroy the land base for Maori autonomy and representation. In the governance of the Taranaki province, since the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, land has been reserved for the bush and the birds but not one acre could be guaranteed as a haven for Māori.” Not one acre. Imagine the consequences of living with that reality—promises reneged on, justice denied—and of every day living with the legacy of extensive land loss and debilitating land reform. Finally, on the day when Ngāti Mutunga had the generosity to meet with the Crown, once more the Crown failed to respect their authority.

The Māori Party strongly endorses the notion that tikanga should take preference in such matters as definition of who is whom, and that it must be for iwi to define themselves. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga asked the Crown to define it in a manner consistent with Ngāti Mutungatanga, but, no, the Crown insisted that the Adoption Act, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the Human Rights Act should usurp and override Ngāti Mutunga tikanga. Historical hapū that are no longer included within the iwi community were placed in the settlement by the Crown. I mean, what is up with that? This House should by now be well aware of the conflict and internal divisions attached to the process of Treaty settlements, yet here is the Crown willingly marching in, like troops storming Parihaka, to set up scenarios that could threaten the internal unity of the iwi. Why do it?

Once the Crown redefined the iwi, it proceeded with the ultimate offence, by pulling a figure out of the air—$14.9 million—and expecting Ngāti Mutunga to be grateful. No explanation was given as to the methodology for calculating the quantum. There was no transparency—zilch. Speaker after speaker—from the Government, at least—mentioned the incredible gesture of Ngāti Mutunga in taking the pittance as being in the best interests of the country, while talking up a rugby stadium and a financial surplus of $11.5 billion. But the country does not seem to be able to afford this settlement. Kātahi te mahi, hōhā ko tera.

The revelation to the Māori Affairs Committee from the Office of Treaty Settlements that the Crown enters Treaty settlements with a predetermined quantum in mind, while not earth-shattering news, was more definitive proof that the fiscal cap lives and that good-faith bargaining is only ever one way. The thief consistently expects to be received in good faith. The committee concluded, as do we, that there could be no confidence that the offer of settlement was a fair assessment of the severity of the breach.

In particular, Ngāti Mutunga remain aggrieved that the reduction of the 150,000 acres to the 75,000 presented by the Sim Commission was not reflected in the quantum. This is a massive difference, yet, as always, the Crown authority prevails. Although the minimisation of Ngāti Mutunga’s traditional boundaries was acknowledged in writing, the injustice remains for Ngāti Mutunga. I suppose Ngāti Mutunga went into the negotiations with eyes open. They knew that the commercial redress reflects less than 1 percent of the value of the land confiscated.

The pain of the alienation has not been lessened by this settlement, of that I am sure. The Department of Conversation estate remains in Crown hands. All lands within Ngāti Mutunga’s traditional rohe have been lost. I suspect that the inevitable contrast with other settlements that Ngāti Mutunga perceive as having included significant commercial assets, such as Crown forest licensed land, leaves Ngāti Mutunga with more questions. To top it off, Ngāti Mutunga incurred substantial costs in even getting to the point of settlement. It is no wonder that they describe the process as outrageous when we consider that these are the uri of tūpuna who suffered the worst excesses of war and raupatu and are now forced to struggle to find resources to make ends meet.

Yet despite all of this, and despite the sense of resentment and injustice heaped upon injustice, Ngāti Mutunga was required to agree that the settlement was fair under the circumstances. What could possibly be fair about Ngāti Mutunga being denied their right to develop their potential? What is fair about the fact that although redress has not been negotiated for their tupuna maunga, a fiscal element has already been calculated as a part of the settlement quantum? What is fair about the quantum being based on a figure that most understand as having been plucked out of the air, or by someone saying: “Oh, one percent sounds good.”?

I know Ngāti Mutunga to be a proud people, despite the long-lasting effects of land confiscation. They and the other tribes of Taranaki are a source of personal inspiration in terms of their tenacity in hanging in there with their claims. Many tell us about the toll that the process takes on people, but their descendants yet to be born will know of their determination and united resolve to do what they could in the best interests of the people. We pay tribute to the efforts in reconnecting the ahi kā with Ngāti Mutunga uri spread throughout ngā hau e whā. We of the Māori Party will support any amendment that relates to the liquidation and wind-up of the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority incorporated society and the transfer of its assets and functions to Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga private trust, if this is what is wanted.

We note the disappointment expressed by the select committee that the Ngāti Mutunga Iwi Authority had to incur costs of up to $20,000 to transfer the assets and functions to the post-governance entity Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga. We of the Māori Party will not relent from exposing the arrogant approach taken by the Crown in its dealing with Ngāti Mutunga. Hansard will record, for example, our shock at the Crown not initially disclosing these sorts of costs to them.

I must say that we understand that Ngāti Mutunga must be practical and make the best of the disastrous situation. The pitiful quantum allocated to the settlement and the directive to establish the rūnanga in the place of the iwi authority as a requirement of the settlement are in themselves sufficient to explain to this House the expectation that the liquidation of the iwi authority will be effected as a part of this settlement process. We agree that there is already well-established precedent for the use of legislation to effect the liquidation of an existing iwi representative entity and its replacement with a new entity.

I attended a number of the Taranaki tribunal hearings. The 1996 Waitangi report stated: “If war is the absence of peace, the war has never ended in Taranaki, because that essential prerequisite for peace among peoples, that each should be able to live with dignity on their own lands, is still absent …”. This bill does nothing to advance the peacemaking process. One would assume that giving an apology might mean that the Crown would not breach again, yet the Crown continues to do so. Ngāti Mutunga survive, but an enduring conflict remains. Such is the nature of Treaty settlements.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Right, let us cut to the chase. We have heard lovely speeches so far in this debate. This must be one of the worst cases of confiscation the country has ever seen. We can put this issue up alongside those of Tainui and Ngāi Tahu. At the end of the day, what we saw in the Taranaki district is no less than abhorrent to most right-thinking people. Is the settlement of $14 million decent enough? Absolutely not. It does not even scratch the surface. My colleague before me mentioned the stadium that the country is besotted with at the moment. One billion dollars is proposed for a national stadium; $14 million is being provided in redress for an unholy war that was brought upon the Taranaki people.

I hate to say this, but we will be supporting this legislation. I hate to say it because I want more to be provided in compensation for the people who suffered.

Pita Paraone: We tried to help them, remember? We helped them a bit.

Hon TAU HENARE: Yeah, we tried to help. Governments always try to help. But let us be serious about this. This quantum is pathetic, given what the Crown did and what Taranaki went through. We all think that what we are doing is good. My heart and soul are in the right place, in terms of wanting to reach a settlement and support the Government. But let us get serious about this matter.

I want to raise a number of issues today. One issue is what Ngāti Mutunga wants the Government to look at, in terms of moving from the old entity to the new entity. The Māori Affairs Committee report states about that issue: “The Crown requires that claimant groups have an established governance entity to receive and manage their settlement assets.” But then we turn around and say that they cannot have that move from the old entity to the new one in this legislation. Why not? The iwi is required to move from an old to a new entity—certain things are required to happen—but the legislation does not include how that should happen. So I have huge sympathy with Ngāti Mutunga on that. [Interruption] Here is the issue. Ngāti Mutunga was given a quantum of money, but I found out today that that was only in the transition from the old entity, not the move to the new entity. I want to go on record today as saying that we have to sort that issue out before the Committee stage, not during the Committee stage. The Office of Treaty Settlements representatives and the Crown negotiators need to front up and get the matter straight. They should not leave it to New Zealand First, the National Party, and the Māori Party to do that sort of work. It is up to the Minister and it is up to the Office of Treaty Settlements to do that business and make sure that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed before they come back to the House.

Another issue concerns the mandate. I will always go on about the mandate, as I have a really big issue about that. The select committee report states: “In the ratification vote on the deed of settlement, from the total 2,000 members of Ngāti Mutunga, 48 percent (635 people) of the 1,313 eligible members voted validly. Of these, 94 percent (597 people) voted in favour of accepting the deed of settlement.” That is actually less than 50 percent of the tribe. Why put a figure of 94 percent there? It gives the impression that 94 percent of the 2,000 are in favour of the deed of settlement, when less than 50 percent of the 2,000 are actually in favour of it. I am not casting aspersions on Ngāti Mutunga; I am just saying that if we are to have anything written about mandates, then please let us not try to hide the size of a mandate in a figure like 94 percent. That makes a lie of the settlement. It suggests to everyone who is interested that 94 percent of the iwi actually support the legislation.

What worries me as well, in terms of settlement legislation, is the question of who knows about it. We do; Ngāti Mutunga does. The rest of the nation will go about their business tomorrow, the next day, and the day after that, not even knowing the history of what has happened. When one talks about passive resistance, the name that one conjures up is of that of Mahatma Gandhi from the 1930s. But hey, what about Parihaka? Why have we not been upfront with regard to our own history? Why have we not revelled in the mana of Parihaka? We should revel in the mana of Taranaki, in terms of the way Māori there handled their dispute with the Crown. If the Government wants to talk about national identity, why does it not start there? If the Government wants to talk about national identity on a world stage, let it talk about national identity in terms of where and what in our history contributes to that.

We can have settlements that are lasting. But $14 million for 150,000 acres that were confiscated? Come on, let us be serious! I think that is a scandal. We should be able to fix that scandal and we should be looking at doing so, instead of saying: “Well, that’s all we can afford, boys and girls. You either take it or leave it.” My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell said that that is exactly what has happened—take it or leave it. People say that a Treaty settlement is a negotiated settlement. We can only negotiate so far. When we keep saying to the Crown that its offer is not enough, we have two choices. One choice is to thank the Crown very much for its kind donation and go on with the settlement, and the other is to say no and move to the back of the bus. I do not think that is fair on anybody.

I am afraid that all the apology says is that the Government is sorry. This legislation does not say why the Government is sorry, and it does not give the historical reasons why it should be sorry. It does not say that anywhere in the legislation. Will the settlement be full and final? Who knows whether in 100 years’ time the uri of the people who have signed the deed of settlement and signed up for the settlement will not come knocking on the door again and say it ain’t good enough? Who knows? Quite frankly, I will not be here to see it, so let us concentrate on the now. We believe that it is a full and final settlement, the Crown believes it is a full and final settlement, and maybe some of Ngāti Mutunga believe it is a full and final settlement. There are four things about this bill: redress, apology, cooperation, and reconciliation. I hope that one day we do get to the stage where we can reconcile what has happened—reconcile the differences.

Lastly, and very briefly, I say that to not have reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in what is essentially a Treaty of Waitangi settlement is absurd. It is stupid, it is silly, and it is time New Zealand First got off the horse and did things properly. I agree with New Zealand First members that a Treaty reference should not be in all legislation, but it should be in Treaty settlement legislation.

Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Minister of State): Ā, ka tū mai au i runga i te taumata roimata hekeheke iho i ngā kanohi o koutou rā, Ngāti Mutunga. Ko tēnei tū, e tū poroporoaki ki tētehi o koutou kua whakawairua i taua wā, arā, tētehi o ngā wahine poupou e whakaarahi mai i te ara mō koutou, mai rā anō. Nā, ka mate taua wahine rā i te ngārara kaitangata, i ngaungau mai i tana tinana. Nā, ko taua wahine rā, ko Teresa. I a au e kite mai i ō koutou nei kanohi, ā, ka hoki mahara mai ki taua wahine e takoto mai rā i roto i tētehi o ngā urupā o roto o Te Āti Awa, me kī pēnei pea, e ngaungau noke te ingoa tawhito o tēnā, i takoto ngātahi ai a ia i a rātou rā. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

Ka mihi mai ahau ki te Whare nei, i a koutou nei e tū i runga i te marae ātea, e whakapuaki ai koutou i ngā kōrero mai i ō koutou nei kaingākau. Arā, ki a koe te uri o Te Rangiwewehi, e whakahuatia mai i ngā nawe mai i nehenehe nui, ā, i runga i a rātou rā, i raro i te maunga waiwai kope a Taranaki. Tae noa atu ki tēnā nā o Ngāti Hine, e hāmama ā-waha i ngā āhuatanga i whakahē pea i ngā wawata i runga i te pokohiwi o ngā uri o tētehi. Nā, i runga i te pokohiwi o koutou rā e noho i runga. Nō reira Mutunga mai i Tītoki ki Te Rau o te huia, hoki ngā kamo ki te tuawhenua nā, ki taua pou whenua a Tara mōku, i te taha o te awa o Waitara, e piki, e rere mai i tana tīmatatanga tae noa atu ki te ngutu awa ki taua rohe. Tēnā koutou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[I rise in terms of the tears that you have shed, Ngāti Mutunga, and to farewell one of your number who has passed away. She was a pillar who paved the way for you from the outset, and succumbed to that dreaded disease, cancer. Teresa was that woman. Memories of her at rest in one of Te Āti Awa’s graveyards came flooding back as I looked at your faces. So, greetings to us.

I acknowledge this House and those of you who have spoken and expressed your views; indeed, to you the relative from Rangiwewehi and your references to longstanding grievances upon those from beneath Mount Taranaki. I also acknowledge the contributions from the member of Ngāti Hine. And so to you, Mutunga, from Tītoki to the Plume of the Huia, into the hinterland and along the banks of the Waitara River from its source to its outlet, greetings to you. ]

As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and also, as was said by the honourable member over there, as Te Uri o Taranaki. In the discussion so far, without doubt there is an opportunity to express a whole range of issues that people perceive as not being of assistance to a claims process.

Tau Henare, the National Party member, spent a lot of time talking about the quantum in terms of dollars and cents. Yet he was a Minister of Māori Affairs when those of us who were in Te Puni Kōkiri at the time had to take around all the rohe Māori the notion about the $1 billion cap. We are seeing here, I suppose, in terms of a policy matter, the implications of two issues that have affected claims after the Ngāi Tahu claim and the Waikato claim—first, the policy about the $1 billion cap; second, the issue that tends to, in my view, limit the value of the claim, which is termed the ratchet clause. So every claim that has come subsequent to that is, in my view, valued in a framework with those two major issues that still resonate in every claims process.

So I would suggest to the honourable member Mr Tau Henare, as he waxes glorious about the quantum for Ngāti Mutunga, that he reflect on the implication of what his political regime did with regard to Treaty claims.

As the last speaker, I take on board all issues that were expressed today, and the honesty with which those issues were articulated. In a sense they need to be kept being articulated. For example, the policy concerning what I would call whakataurimatanga—other people would refer to that as whāngai—in a sense is counter to the whole issue about settlements based on whakapapa. Because often our descendants are not only Aotearoa based, they are a part of a global village, and as such they often form alliances with people who are non-Māori. But under the legislation, as at present existing, they have an equal right in terms of claimants. Yet in the Māori land tenure we have a principle under law that means that the alienation of Māori-owned land can be transferred only to what they call the preferred class of alienee, which means one has to be part of the original whakapapa in order to inherit particular land rights.

So those questions that have been asked do bear further discussion. In spite of that, and in spite of those well articulated issues being put before this House, I commend Mutunga for their persistence and consistency in taking a pathway forward, which they describe as being pragmatic.

Now whatever my thoughts were with regard to the pragmatic approach, in essence I suppose, for the iwi that makes the decision about whether to accept, that is a responsibility and an issue that it must come to terms with. So, Mutunga, me ō koutou nei raukura titiā, [Mutunga and your feather adornments] this is only the second reading. There is one further reading plus a Committee stage where no doubt we will seek to address one major issue that has been brought up, and that is in regard to the translocation or transference of assets from one point to another.

I think this second reading has been thoughtful, and definitely not adversarial, because each member has taken a stance to express a particular view. Having done that, members of this House must also take into consideration as well that Mutunga has accepted the offer. Nā koutou kē te mana, ehara i a mātou. Ahakoa te teitei hoki o ngā ngaru papaki mai. Ahakoa te koropūpū hoki ai ō tō koutou kaingākau, tangi ai. Nā koutou kē e whakaaengia kia haere tika ai. Anei te tihi o ngā whakataukītanga kōrero mai i a Taranaki: “To mua anō ki mua.” Ahakoa rā ngā āhuatanga ō muri ake. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[The authority is yours, not ours. Regardless how high the waves are that crash on the shore, regardless what bubbles up from within you and cries, it was you who agreed what is appropriate. Here is a saying of all sayings from Taranaki, regardless of the circumstances to follow: “What must be to the fore should be foremost.” So, greetings to you and to all of us.]

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Climate Change Response Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): I move, That the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Climate change presents very serious global risks and demands an urgent global response. The recent Stern review concluded that the scientific evidence is overwhelming. Taking action now must be viewed as investment in the future. The less we do now, the greater the difficulty and the costs of adapting to climate change in the future. We must do what we can to reduce our emissions, to protect our clean, green image, and to make our contribution to the global effort.

The great outdoors is central to Kiwis’ lives. We need to protect it so that we can maintain our distinct New Zealand way of life. We need to take action, balanced with the need for productivity gains and growth. This bill is about providing opportunities. The bill allows individuals the opportunity to hold accounts in New Zealand’s Emissions Unit Registry and to trade in emission units. It also provides a mechanism for landowners to establish forest sinks and earn Kyoto Protocol units. With these opportunities come risks. As with all investments, individuals will need to make their own assessment of the risks and returns of entering the emerging carbon market.

In regard to the Emissions Unit Registry, the bill amends the principal Act to allow for individuals, not only the Crown, to hold accounts in the registry, and therefore to hold emission units. The amendments made by the Commerce Committee were to clauses 5, 13, and 23, in order to better protect the property rights and interests of unit and account holders. The Commerce Committee amended clauses 5 and 13, which relate to the powers of the Minister of Finance and the registrar to deal with units, open accounts, etc., by providing more specific criteria in circumstances in which the Ministers responsible for the registry may provide a direction to the registrar to close a holding account. The select committee also amended clause 23, which limits the bar to bringing an action against the Crown. This narrows the exclusion of Crown liability.

In regard to the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative, the bill amends the principal Act by inserting a new Part 3B into the Forests Act 1949. This will provide an opportunity for landowners to establish forest sinks and earn carbon credits. The mechanisms in this bill will enable landowners to make better productive use of their land, particularly isolated and erosion-prone land that is currently marginal for uses such as agriculture or conventional forestry production. Landowners may wish to establish a forest to control soil erosion, improve water quality, and better manage flood peaks. This may in turn assist with maintaining land production, averting damage to farm improvements, and reducing downstream damage from siltation and pollution. Forestry, of course, can also diversify rural incomes, thus reducing the impact of adverse events that may become more frequent with climate change.

The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provides an opportunity for landowners to assist in both mitigating and adapting to climate change. The aim of adapting to climate change is to minimise the risks and maximise the opportunities that will arise from the projected changes in our climate over the coming decades and century. Adaptation complements mitigation, and mitigation is about reduction of emissions. Both are necessary responses to deal with the challenges that climate change poses to our economy, environment, and society.

The Government moved amendments to the bill through a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee of the whole House. Since the second reading, in relation to the registry, amendments have been made to clause 7(2)(a), clause 9, and clause 15(1). The amendments to clauses 7(2)(a) and 15(1) were made in order to ensure more efficient operation of the registry. The amendment to clause 9 was to provide better transparency and specificity in order to better protect the rights of unit and account holders. With regard to the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative, amendments were made to clause 30. The amendments substitute new definitions of landholding, carbon sequestration, forest sink, forest sink covenant, and landowner. These are technical amendments and will assist the working of the legislation. The more substantive change to clause 30 concerns the regulation-making powers. It enables regulations to be promulgated by the Governor-General in Council concerning carbon sequestration calculation methodology, the transfer of units, the definition of a forest sink, dispute resolution, requirements for reporting and verification, and harvest restrictions.

Finally, I thank all of those involved in developing the bill, the Commerce Committee for its consideration of the bill, and my parliamentary colleagues from both sides of the House who have supported the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): What a pickle we have in New Zealand in respect of climate change policy. It has all been said quite accurately by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. That neutral office holder has said that in New Zealand right now we have a vacuum in respect of climate change policy. Here we are, 7 years after the election of this Government, and on one of the most critical issues of our time we have a vacuum. All we have from the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues is that next month we will get some options. We on this side of the House say that, after 7 years of this Government, a set of options is simply not good enough; it is simply not credible.

It is all the more incredible that the Prime Minister, at the recent Labour Party conference, said that New Zealand is going to be carbon neutral. That was an extraordinary commitment from the Prime Minister. The advice from officials is that New Zealand does not have a bolter’s show of meeting the very modest targets of the Kyoto Protocol as ratified in 2002. Officials are saying that even to stabilise emissions from New Zealand is an extraordinarily demanding thing to do. So for a Prime Minister who has failed so badly to now be talking about a more ambitious goal than that of any other country in the world defies credibility.

Then we look at the Government’s actual record. How often have I heard Labour members damning the Governments of Australia and the United States in respect of climate change? How often have I stood on the platform and heard Labour Ministers talking about big bad George W Bush being in the pocket of the oil barons and a threat to the climate? Well, this week in Nairobi this Government got a very harsh message. You see, emissions under Helen Clark’s Government have grown by 6.8 percent.

Lindsay Tisch: How much?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: By 6.8 percent, and in the big bad USA over the same years emissions have grown by 1.3 percent. So there we have Helen Clark’s actual record—not the rhetoric but the actual record—which is five times worse than that of George W Bush. Now let us look at the record of Australia, because I have often been at international conferences where our Labour Ministers have pretended that somehow John Howard and Australia are the bad guys. Again, I ask them to look at the record, because New Zealand’s emissions are growing at a far faster rate than Australia’s.

Darren Hughes: What’s their total per person?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: But even more serious, I tell Mr Darren Hughes, is that in the last 6 years, when Mr Hughes and Labour have been in Government, we have seen each and every year a decline in the amount of forestation. Throughout the 1990s we averaged plantings of 60,000 hectares of new forest each year. Every year that Labour has been in office that number has dropped, to the point where in 2004 and 2005 we actually had net deforestation. Labour has said that that is just economics and it is not its fault. Well, that is interesting. If we go across to Australia, which is selling to exactly the same markets, and which is investing heavily in the pine and forest industry, we see that there is 450,000 hectares of new forests. So I say—

Shane Jones: It’s a bigger country.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Mr Shane Jones says that it is a bigger country. Let us say that it has five times our population. If we were doing even one-fifth as well, we would expect to have 90,000 hectares of new forest in New Zealand. But I tell Mr Jones that we are actually cutting down more trees than we are planting—we are going backwards. So I say to Labour members that their track record is appalling.

Let us look at the track record of policy failures. There has been the “fart tax”, and the backward flip on that. There has been the carbon tax, and the Government’s back-down on that—although we have different answers from the Prime Minister and from the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues as to why the carbon tax was dropped. There is the billion-dollar bungle in respect of the Kyoto balance. Projects to encourage renewable energy have been stopped. We have had negotiated greenhouse agreements, and that policy has been canned. There has even been the nonsense of Labour voting to remove climate change provisions from the Resource Management Act, then voting for a bill that would put them back in. Labour has blocked renewable energy projects—it killed Project Aqua and it stopped the Dobson hydro scheme—yet it has built coal-fired power stations and gas-fired power stations, and, for goodness’ sake, it has even spent public money on building an oil-fired power station. It is little wonder that we have seen a constant decline in the proportion of New Zealand’s electricity that is produced from renewable energy.

Members opposite, who have no policy—the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says they have no policy; their friends in the Green Party say they have no policy—ask what National’s policy is. I want to outline exactly what National thinks should be done. We believe that we need to cap the emissions in the electricity sector. They are growing faster than those in any other area. New Zealand has lots of renewable energy options, with wind, hydro, geothermal, and wave and tidal energy, to be able to meet this country’s electricity needs without building another coal-fired power station, as Mighty River Power, one of this Government’s State-owned enterprises, is promoting in Whangarei.

We also say that we need to provide an incentive to plant forests. That is why we are saying we want a tradable emissions permit system, which will enable us to encourage players in the forestry industry to get some credits for the forests they are planting. You see, this Government, with its ridiculous policy of a deforestation cap, is saying to foresters that it will charge them if in future they cut down their trees. Not surprisingly, those foresters have their chainsaws out early and they are cutting those trees down, which is bad for our economy and bad for the environment. That deforestation cap will go. National says that is a sound approach.

We have identified a whole number of other such ideas, including bio-fuels, improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles, updating the building code to take into account energy efficiency, reforming the Resource Management Act so that we can actually build some renewable energy projects, and joining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, an agreement that includes India and China. Let us be honest: we will not make any progress on climate change unless those countries are engaged and involved. We have also talked about the fact that we need to substantially boost investment in research and development. This Government has turned down over $3 million worth of research projects to reduce our agricultural emissions, and we simply say that that is wrong.

So this bill is not going to take us very far, at all. Those who think this bill will solve New Zealand’s climate change problem are kidding themselves. I challenge the next Labour speaker to tell us how Labour is going to make New Zealand carbon neutral. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to prophesy with her incredible targets at the Labour Party conference, and to talk about our being carbon neutral, but she should come down to this Parliament and tell us how that will be achieved. For us it looks like a pipedream. [Interruption] I say to Mr Hughes and Marian Hobbs that the Labour Party cannot have a conference where it talks about being carbon neutral, then have Mighty River Power propose to build a new coal-fired power station that will produce 38 million tonnes of carbon over the next 40 years. That is simply not credible. I would like the next Labour speaker to explain why it has proceeded to build a new oil-fired power station.

We need leadership in this area. National has provided it. I encourage Labour to pick up National’s constructive ideas around a tradable emissions permit system. That is the way of the future. This bill is only a teeny-weeny step towards providing what is required. We need to fill the vacuum that exists in climate change policy and actually provide New Zealand with a constructive way forward.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central): With delight I rise to support the third reading of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill, for several reasons. The first is to reply immediately to the speaker before me, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and reiterate to all who are listening that this bill is not the sole movement, the sole way forward, towards achieving carbon neutrality. To advocate that, or even to pretend that, would be foolish. I have not heard anyone on the Government benches ever advocate that this Permanent Forest Sink Initiative is the sole way forward.

We will reach our goals, and there are several reasons why I support this bill. The first is that amending the Act so that individuals as well as the Crown can hold emission units will allow for possible developments as policy comes out in the future. I say that as clearly as I possibly can, for those who are well aware of what is actually happening in respect of the questions of reforestation or forestation. At the moment, the holding of emission units is very limited. The bill says that someone not connected with the Government can now own carbon credits. We have actually made a shift, and that shift, in this particular bill, opens up some possibilities that I understand are the subject of policy development.

The second reason why I particularly support this bill is that the whole notion of the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative does allow landowners to establish forest sinks and earn carbon credits. Particularly, though, it allows them to do this and at the same time kill about two or three birds with one stone—or with one planting.

Eric Roy: We’re not going to kill birds!

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: No, we are not; we are going to provide habitat for birds, and that is about the fifth reason why we should do this.

This initiative is particularly about planting forest on isolated or erosion-prone land, and that is something that will help land subject to the floods that have come about largely through climate change and deforestation. Some say this can be done by planting indigenous trees and plants, thereby enhancing the habitat. Those of us who were in the Local Government and Environment Committee meeting this morning listening to officials of the Department of Conservation know that this initiative is another tool for that department.

The bill is also about improving water quality. At this stage, I draw the attention of members opposite to water quality and Lake Taupō, and I will repeat a small story for people here who claim there has been a loss of the amount of acreage in forest. When I was the Minister for the Environment the ministry was negotiating funding of $81 million, and the methodology, to change land use around Lake Taupō. The ministry talked to Tūwharetoa, the Taupō District Council, and Environment Waikato. We were trying to do this aside from regulation—to provide incentive. Suddenly, we had forest owners coming to us saying that they wanted to bill the Government for billions of dollars. The reason they gave was that they knew there was no money in forestry, there was money only in dairying, and that if the Government said they could not put in dairy farms around Lake Taupō because it wanted the lake’s water quality to improve, then they wanted compensation. That has meant that every time I hear forestry companies say that the Government does not really care about the Kyoto Protocol or about water quality, I know that all they care about is the bottom dollar. Some of those people do not have an environmental bone in their bodies. I find those sorts of arguments, which have been repeated by our colleagues across the floor so many times, slightly difficult to take.

I remind those members of the House that the Kyoto Protocol was an attempt by the international community to find a mechanism by which it could solve the planetary problem of global warming, and that mechanism was a trading mechanism. It is the same sort of mechanism that is actually being used in respect of nitrates around Lake Taupō, and maybe around Lake Rotorua. It is the same kind of thing. An incentive is given to people in order to change their ways of earning, their ways of farming, or their ways of industry. The mechanism involved is a trading mechanism and it involves the valuing of carbon credits. As we say in this bill, if people can grow more trees to absorb carbon, then they can earn credits and balance that against greenhouse gas emissions.

That—for those who are not listening—is what is meant by carbon neutrality. It is a balance between emissions and credits earned, and it can be done in market forms and by activity. So some industries, private cars, bus fleets, whatever, will be exuding carbon dioxide—and animals will be giving out methane and greenhouse gas emissions—and those emissions will be neutralised by what those industries plant and grow that absorbs the carbon out there. That is carbon neutrality. It is a really important aim to achieve.

I must admit that I feel I have been at the receiving end of the speech given before me by the Hon Dr Nick Smith at least five times in 5 days, and I am getting rather bored by that particular speech. I also find it ironic, because the same member gets up and says all the time: “I want consensus. I want to work with the Government.” Well, the Government feels particularly attacked and unloved by that particular member, and, for all sorts of reasons, cannot really understand why we should get into bed with him. Well, there are all sorts of reasons!

Eric Roy: Hang on, just stay with killing the birds!

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I will stay with killing the birds. Is it consensus when that particular member gets up and breaks select committee convention by quoting from documents that were given to the select committee? I would think that is not an endearing attribute of working with the Government. Is it consensus when the National Party uses every opportunity to attack, rather than to build trust and rather than to build consensus? It is all about attack. Its members ask why we do not take them with us on overseas delegations. Why would we, when all we get is attack, and we do not get a way of moving forward? Is it consensus to talk about percentages of growth rather than actual emissions or total per person, as in the statistics that were given out then? When one talks about Australia and percentages of growth in emissions, as distinct from emissions per person, that gives a totally different picture; that is playing around with statistics, and we have seen too much of that. That is not about building consensus.

Is it consensus to talk about Australia’s reforestation when we know that the Australians do not have a dairy industry out there trying to take up every piece of acreage available, as happens particularly in Southland, where that member, Eric Roy, comes from? The Australians do not have that because they have an irrigation problem, with a lack of water, so their reforestation is for very good environmental reasons—to conserve water and have a different land use. That is not comparing apples with apples. It is not an example of people from the other side talking with people from this side. It is an example of exchanging attack knives rather than working with. When we have an example of that working with, I think the Government will be interested.

But, unlike National members, I will remind listeners what this bill is about. This bill is about the principles behind establishing a Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. By ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, an opportunity has been opened up for landowners—particularly of largely marginal land—to establish permanent forests and gain individual emission units. To enter that initiative the land must be eligible. Forest is defined under the protocol, but there may be areas of mixed scrub and pasture; the boundaries may not be clear, and we will work our way through that. What will the forest owners receive? They will receive tradable Kyoto Protocol - compliant emission units that they will be free to sell to whomever they wish. Can trees be harvested? Yes, trees will be able to be removed on a continuous canopy basis; people will not be able to clear-fell. Are we talking about exotic and indigenous species? We certainly are.

So there are opportunities out here to be taken. We are dealing with the environment; the benefits are not just about carbon credits and making money but about providing increased indigenous habitat and ecosystems, clean water, flood protection, and cleaner air in mitigation against dairying, for example. Those are, therefore, reasons to support this bill.

Finally, I would like to say that I am grateful the National Party, for all its harrumphing and attacking, is—I understand—going to vote in favour of this legislation, having changed its mind halfway through and suddenly had a road to Damascus experience.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I would like to take my part in the third reading of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill, too, and make what is probably about my eighth contribution since it was reported back and had its second reading. I would have liked to be here when the Climate Change Response Bill was introduced in 2002. Here we have a Government saying the Opposition is a johnny-come lately, yet the Government actually introduced the original legislation in 2002—

Lindsay Tisch: 4 years!

ERIC ROY: —4 years ago. I accept what the member Marian Hobbs, who has just resumed her seat, said: this is a minor part of the much bigger plan that is needed to solve the problem. I look forward to new legislation and new initiatives, and I offer my wisdom and ability to assist the member in introducing something that is real and meaningful.

What we have had from this Government is, essentially, placebo activity—activity that makes people think something is happening when it is not. The Government signed up to the Kyoto Protocol with the notion that it was going to solve the problem, but in reality the protocol is ineffectual because the model upon which it is based is flawed. Let us go back, the Kyoto Protocol said, to 1990 levels of emissions, and categorise countries into category 1, category 2, and category 3. But in the first commitment period only category 1 countries have to go back to 1990 levels, and it looks like no country will make it. New Zealand is not going to make it. This bill, which puts some solidity back into the sink market in terms of forestry, is not going to do it for New Zealand, either.

I want to state a few principles here. I, personally, have been concerned about the impacts of climate change since the late 1980s. Right now, it is a very, very topical issue. Many members will have seen or heard about the film An Inconvenient Truth. I am not sure the film actually progresses all that much the argument on the impacts of climate change. From my point of view, it is not really a scientific treatise; it is more an emotive response. We know that some of the issues that are presented in it are factually not right—the bit about the islands in the Pacific sinking, causing Polynesian people to come to New Zealand, and that sort of thing. We know that is not right, so we start asking what else is not right.

I, for one, would prefer that this argument be put at a scientific level, so that we can understand the issue better. I accept that maybe 20 percent of the scientific community are sceptics, but let them publish factual documents, not just make press statements. Then we can make comparisons, because science is about thesis and antithesis. That stuff needs to be out there.

As I have said, I have been looking at this issue for about 20 years, and I am persuaded that planet Earth has a fragile thermal blanket around it, and that New Zealand ought to accept its share of responsibility for the 7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases that are released into that blanket every day—although some of those are absorbed into the ocean. But if the sceptics say that planet Earth can absorb and tolerate that much, then I ask at what point in the next 1,000 years—considering that currently we release 7 million tonnes a day, and the amount is increasing—they will say “Oops!”. Because that day must come, and the responsible course is for us to move now.

This bill plays a very minor part in this regard. The Government is wrong if it thinks the bill will buy us time in meeting our commitment. While the bill has been going through the different stages I have made many speeches on this subject, and have said there are a number of reasons why New Zealand is deforesting. The Government’s own example, with Landcorp clear-felling a large area of the central North Island, indicates that there are other, more productive forms of land use; that there are better returns from doing something else. Just changing the sink responsibility, so that tree owners can own the forest credits, will not solve the problem.

I mentioned in an earlier speech that we need to have value-adding and processing so that there is an elevated price and we get more out of the trees we produce. We need to look at long-term commitments of electricity from a sustainable source, because, as my colleague the Hon Nick Smith said, this Government is relying more and more on thermal energy, and that has been the bogeyman in terms of our releasing greenhouse gases and the reason why New Zealand has performed so poorly according to the report that was presented in Nairobi recently.

So we have to accept responsibility to put in order all of the things that will encourage people to plant trees. Yes, there are some fragile areas of New Zealand that we need to retire, and it will be good if they go back into some form of trees, but we ought not to react in a knee-jerk way and suddenly plant Pinus radiata or something else that may degrade the land with acid leaf litter or some of those other issues. We need to not react in a knee-jerk way; there needs to be a rational approach. Today the Local Government and Environment Committee heard the financial review of the Department of Conservation, and the officials said that the retiring of land under tenure review will assist in the generation of carbon credits. I thought, hello, tenure reviews are mostly about retiring land above the snowline, and the definition of the snowline is that trees do not grow above it. So how will we create a huge carbon sink on retired land above 1,000 metres? I am interested to see the Department of Conservation’s proposals.

The point is this bill will do a little bit, but not a lot. It is a start, but by no means a completion. There is the issue of “food miles”, and the Government must take action because some of our competitors in Europe are jumping on the bandwagon and saying their people must buy food products produced in Europe. That is nothing more than a prejudice against New Zealand for marketing reasons. It is not based on science, and earlier in my speech I said it was important that we bring science into this. The Minister has mentioned that New Zealand agriculture is much more efficient than that of other countries, but, on the other hand, the Government is out there trumpeting that 49 percent of our greenhouse gases come from agriculture, and that is drawing the attention of our competitors overseas. Yes, we might be more efficient, but they have in their heads the fact that New Zealand’s agriculture is a significant player in the production of greenhouse gases.

During the course of the debate, from the second reading on, I have urged and challenged Government members to justify with science the figure of 49 percent. Trees through photosynthesis sequester carbon out of the atmosphere; some of the 7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases emitted each day go into trees, and that is good. How come that does not work with grass? We are doing this country’s exports a mischief when we loosely use that figure. I have asked officials, Government members, and anybody who uses that figure to justify it. Not one person has. So that is a challenge for the next Government speaker, and for the Government. If they continue to peddle that line, then the consequences are that consumers will boycott New Zealand goods, and that will be because the Government is promoting something that I do not believe is accurate. If it is accurate, then let Government members prove it, and then we will deal with the issues.

Let me conclude the way I started. This Earth is a relatively fragile environment, and we as legislators have a responsibility to do our bit, not just for today or for tomorrow but looking forward to the future. I believe that greenhouse gas emissions are one of those things that we need to approach in a rational way, and, yes, it is important that there is some kind of cooperation across the House. The previous speaker, the Hon Marian Hobbs, asked why the Government should include the Opposition. I say simply because National will be the Government, these are long-term issues, and we cannot have a 3-year parliamentary term approach to solving a problem that is significant looking forward centuries. That simply will not work, and there has to be buy in. National is offering our combined resources to work with the Government in finding a solution that not only will solve the problem of climate change but will build New Zealand’s credibility, enhance the primary products that we produce, and build tourism, for the future.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): In referring to what the previous speaker, Eric Roy, said, I point out that I have been working, perhaps harder than anyone in this House, to try to get some cross-party agreements going on climate change. I refer back to when I went to the Kyoto meeting in 1997. National was the Government and Simon Upton was the Minister for the Environment. There was no possibility then of the Greens being invited to join the Government delegation; I went entirely as an observer at my own expense. I had to go under the auspices of an international parliamentarians for the environment group, because there was no way I could get there under the auspices of the New Zealand Government. However, let us hope that times will change and we will get some more cross-party work on this issue.

The issue that the previous speaker raised is serious and deserves an explanation, and possibly I might be able to help answer his question. Eric Roy has consistently said he takes climate change seriously and wants answers. He asked why there are credits for forests planted on land but not for the carbon sequestered in grass on grasslands. The answer is that, yes, the grass stores a little bit of carbon, although not nearly as much as the forest does. When the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated the question was what land-use changes would qualify as sinks under Kyoto. The measurement tools in those days were quite poor compared with what they are now, and only forest was agreed to count—

Eric Roy: Will the member take a question?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: The member will take a question.

Eric Roy: The point I was making was how do you get to the 49 percent. I am not arguing the relative merit, because grass is processed. Could you answer that—where do you get the 49 percent from?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Forty-nine percent is the result of counting those gases that the Kyoto Protocol counts—methane, nitrous oxide, and so forth. It is the percentage of our gross emissions; nobody says it is the percentage of our net emissions. Under Kyoto, the carbon sequestered in animals and in grass does not count, but under Kyoto II that carbon might count. There will be more development of the whole question of land use and land-use change as the—

Eric Roy: So it is not a finite result?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: It is not a finite result, but it is the one we are liable for in this term, and that is why we have to count it.

I gave some figures this afternoon on the area of forest that would be required to sequester all of our emissions in order to meet the Prime Minister’s target of having a carbon-neutral economy. Members may have noted that those figures were very large. All of the land from Wellington up to Levin and the Wairarapa, for example, would be required to sequester just the outcome from our transport. I will update those figures a bit now. The Greens support this Permanent Forest Sink Initiative—as we have done all the way through—because we think permanent forest sinks are an important part of the answer. Let us look at just what they could achieve in neutralising the emissions that we are accountable for under Kyoto, which are the emissions that have grown since 1990. Under this bill, how much area of new permanent forest sink would we need to neutralise completely the growth in our emissions since 1990? The answer is that we would need 780,000 hectares of forest. That is not totally impossible. We can go a long way towards achieving a target like that if we want to.

Eric Roy: Is that per year?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: No, that is to offset everything that has grown from 1990 until now. How is it made up? This is where the figures become interesting. Although agriculture represents around half of our total emissions, it is not around half of the growth, and it is only the growth we are accountable for—this time—under Kyoto. Agriculture has grown enough to require 280,000 hectares of forest. Could we find on marginal land, on odd corners of farms that are not highly productive, and on areas that are steep and slipping, 280,000 hectares in New Zealand on which to plant permanent forest in order to completely wipe the debt of all our increasing agricultural emissions since 1990? I have not done those figures, but I think maybe we could do so.

But let us compare that with what has happened with transport—and this is the reason the Greens are so frustrated about the lack of action on transport by this Government and every preceding one. The transport emissions growth would require 330,000 hectares of forest. In other words, the growth in agricultural emissions would require the equivalent of 4.5 times the area of Lake Taupō to be planted in forest, but the growth in transport emissions would require the equivalent of 5.4 times the area. Electricity, by comparison, is piddling; it would take only 55,000 hectares—only 90 percent of the area of Lake Taupō.

There is an awful lot of focus on electricity. Electricity is an easy target and we do need to take action everywhere, but the biggie is transport, and we are not looking at it. But it is not hard to do so. Our vehicles are using on average, across the fleet, twice as much fuel as they need to compared with best-practice vehicles, in order to travel the same distances and cart the same number of people. Surely, over the next decade or two that will be an easy target to reach.

So the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill is needed, it is overdue, and the Greens totally support it. Permanent forest sinks are an important way of meeting our Kyoto targets in the short term, and of restoring some climate balance in the longer term. They are only a temporary solution; in the long term there is not enough land to keep on expanding the planting area every year as we increase emissions. Therefore, permanent forest sinks will buy us some time. The real target has to be to reduce those emissions, to find clean sources of energy from renewables, to use energy much more efficiently, and to change the way we do things.

But this is a good bill. Let us support it, and let us recognise that 780,000 hectares of permanent forest sink would offset all of our emissions growth since 1990, which is what we are accountable for under Kyoto.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker; kia ora tātou katoa. The emails came in fast and furious after the second reading of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill on 25 October—to the Māori Party, at least. One email said the following: “All the big noise about climate change, interviews from all sectors … when the reality is that they are all ‘johnny-come-latelys’. No-one is talking or asking the view of the indigenous people, Maori, Aborigine, Inuit, Native American, Papuan etc. We hold the key to the Earth’s survival, and they dismiss you as you would a child who asks intuitive questions”.

Never one to shirk from a challenge, I thought it was only fitting to bring to the House a copy of the indigenous peoples’ statement from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change some 4 years ago, in November 2002. The statement refers to the sacred relationship with Papatūānuku, mother Earth, that binds indigenous peoples to conserve biodiversity for the survival of present and future generations. The perilous state of the Earth, as we are challenged by global warming and climate change, is evidenced in the melting of the polar ice caps, the inconsistency of the seasons, the rising seas, food and water shortages, species extinction, and massive loss of lives and homes. Traditional ways of life are being affected by the damage caused by climate change, particularly in forest, wetland, river, and coastal areas.

Set against this wider international indigenous perspective, what will this bill do to make a positive difference to mother Earth, Papatūānuku? In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Aotearoa has made the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to at least 5 percent below the 1999 levels from 2008 to 2012, and it could not have come a day sooner. The fact that we are the fourth-highest nation amongst developed nations in the emission of greenhouse gases is hardly something to boast about; nor is the fact that New Zealand’s rate of emissions is growing significantly faster than that of Australia’s, nor the fact that the rate of carbon emissions has increased faster than the rate of population growth and GDP, leaving us in the dubious position of our rate being more than twice the world average, and above the OECD average.

This bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to allow entities other than the Crown to hold accounts in the Kyoto Protocol register and to trade in emission units.

In my second reading speech I raised the issues associated with the actions of the Christchurch City Council, which has sold carbon credits to British Gas. There is, of course, a very significant contradiction inherent in the relationship of carbon credits to climate change. If we take the basic premise that climate change is about greenhouse gas emissions, surely the desired outcome is that emissions need to be reduced. If industry polluters are able to purchase carbon credits to offset their polluting emissions, yet still make no apparent effort to reduce emissions, surely the core problem remains.

The hub of the problem is that most global warming over the last 150 years is attributable to human activity. The answer, therefore, lies in our human hands. All of us have a responsibility to do what we can to ensure that we assist this nation by not putting more carbon into the atmosphere than we are able to offset by other means. Indigenous peoples across the globe understand their role and responsibility as being unique in conserving Papatūānuku, mother Earth, but it is not a duty that we hold exclusively. We in the Māori Party believe that if we are going to reverse, mitigate, or halt in their flow any of the catastrophes that stand to threaten Papatūānuku, urgent and specific attention must be accorded this issue by all peoples of this land.

The second major thrust of this bill is to extend the regulation-making powers of the Forests Act 1949. The proposal is to establish a mechanism to allow landowners to access the value of carbon from newly established permanent forest sinks. Such an arrangement created under the Kyoto Protocol may result in the promotion of afforestation for erosion control and other environmental concerns, and the promotion of forestry for economic development and employment promotion in particular regions.

We are aware that Ngāti Porou Whānui Forests is very keen for this bill to be supported, and it recognises that it and other iwi will be able to make income by trading carbon credits accumulated in their forest assets. It believes that it is able to make money before the harvesting of forests, which, as such, is a totally new income stream. Alternatively, it is able to make money by planting permanent forests on isolated or erodible land that is not suitable for farming and harvesting forests. To this end, of course, the Māori Party will support the priorities expressed by whānau, hapū, and iwi in their aspirations for cultural, economic, social, environmental, and spiritual wealth. There is no greater goal for many of our people than for whānau, hapū, and iwi to be actively participating and succeeding in the economy.

But we draw the House’s attention once more to the concept of the genuine progress index, which differentiates between positive contributions to progress, and negative activity. We are aware that forestry can be harmful to the environment. We understand that some hapū and iwi have been undertaking research in forestation and deforestation that could be helpful in underpinning our future developments. What we know is that deforestation to create pasture lands and subsequent pine forests has caused a whole host of environmental problems for land and waterway ecosystems. Pine needles and sap are poisonous, allowing no secondary or tertiary forest-floor growth. Thus the natural layering found in indigenous forests, where other flora and fauna form part of the ecosystem, is not found. Pine is very much a mono-crop. After three rotations of pine, the ground has effectively been rendered sour and useless for any other crops for many generations.

There are obvious implications for whānau wanting to develop land-based sustainability. We must always bear in mind the checks and balances that come with any situation, and the cost of deforestation for future growth.

Finally, I once more draw the attention of the House back to the indigenous peoples’ caucus from the eighth session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In its statement the indigenous caucus concluded: “Our duty as indigenous peoples, to Mother Earth impels us to demand that we be provided adequate opportunity to participate fully and actively at all levels of local, national, regional and international decision making processes and mechanisms on climate change.”

The Māori Party is proud to stand in the House to contribute to the debate and the discussions around climate change, and to vote in support of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I am pleased to take a call on behalf of United Future in this third reading of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. United Future does not pretend to be able to predict all of the consequences and outcomes of climate change, but through the growing scientific and economic evidence we understand the risks of climate change and the need for a timely response to it. Climate change is, in truth, a global challenge, and through international and domestic cooperation it can be managed so as to mitigate its risks while providing, at least in the New Zealand context, a range of opportunities for environmental sustainability and social and economic development. The environment is our basic life-support system and must remain in good health. If people want to use the environment for outdoor recreation or economic development, or if they want simply to admire and appreciate it, then it must be used in ways that do not cause permanent widespread damage or compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs—that is, in ways that are sustainable long term.

We are very, very delighted indeed to see the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative contained in this bill. While creating an opportunity for further carbon sinks, the trees will also work to prevent soil erosion, the leeching of nitrates, and the excursion of stock into rural waterways. We want to see this legislation promote the planting of native trees and bush alongside, or close to, all inland waterways where practical, in order to act as carbon sinks, limit soil erosion, and reduce agricultural runoffs. We encourage landowners to return non-viable farming land—and we have huge tracts of it in this country—to native, regenerative forest in order to create carbon sinks. We also want to ensure that New Zealand producers of sustainably harvested timber products are not undercut by the dumping of imported timber and products that have been harvested without regard to sustainability criteria. I think it is really quite stupid that we continue to allow into this country large importations of timber that come from non-sustainable harvesting in overseas countries, in competition with timber grown sustainably in New Zealand. I believe that unless we change our policy in that regard, we are not part of the solution to climate change but are actually part of the problem.

I want to make a couple of other brief points. Firstly, when we talk about planting trees and the afforestation of the New Zealand land, we are not talking about any particular type of tree. Native trees and exotic species should both be part of the mix. Indeed, we need to spread our risk away from Pinus radiata and look at other faster growing and therefore better carbon sequestering species—such as, for example, eucalypts. I would also like to say that there is some scientific linkage now between pine trees, which we are good at growing, and biomass fuels. If, indeed, that science can be progressed, we could certainly have a win-win for New Zealand. Let us imagine that, from our own pine trees, we could actually produce quite a good proportion of our transport fuel needs. That really would be an ideal outcome, and we should strive to work towards it.

I also mention that just the other day I talked with Dr Malahoff, who is the head of GNS Science—a Crown-owned institute—and one of New Zealand’s leading scientists. He told me that GNS Science is currently working on a system of possible sequestration of carbon from our thermal electricity generating plants. I understand the idea is that the carbon would be captured and pumped into the now empty Kapuni gas well. I thought that was a quite striking—and also scientific—response to the question of climate change. I think the Government should give full support to that idea, because it could be a very important part of bringing New Zealand in the direction of the long-term goal of carbon neutrality.

I agree too with the points that Jeanette Fitzsimons has made regarding transport. I think we need to spend more time identifying where the roadblocks are to shifting people out of cars and into buses and trains. We need to make sure that we have robust ways of doing that and come up with novel answers. For example, I have suggested in this House earlier that we need more car parking buildings at the railway stations in Auckland and Wellington, so that people can park-and-ride. We need to look at those practical realities as well, if we are to see the carbon emission goals be accomplished.

This bill is a step in the right direction and has the wholehearted support of United Future.

MARK BLUMSKY (National): It is nice to have a chance to participate in this third reading. As I indicated the other day when I spoke during the Committee stage, when members speak on areas that were not part of the select committee process that one has been involved in, one learns a lot of things one did not know. I suggest that I now know a lot more about forestry and its importance in the whole climate change debate, and very much understand the power of forestry as an effective method for sequestering carbon. I did not realise the power of a tree in regard to cleaning up the air.

When I look at what this Climate Change Response Amendment Bill is trying to do, I can say only that we have to support it. What we are doing is putting in a mechanism that encourages and supports forest growth. It provides an opportunity for people to plant forests, because it will make a heck of a lot more sense to them to do so.

The thing that surprised me when I looked at this bill was that I did not realise that originally National did not support it. In reading the report back from the Commerce Committee, I noted that Opposition members opposed this bill on the grounds that New Zealand should not be implementing the Kyoto Protocol ahead of our major trading partners. I know that the Minister took great delight the other day in trying to suggest that we were doing a major flip-flop. That is not the case, at all. We were very clear in our minds way back then that Kyoto was not delivering what it should, and that the fact that New Zealand would be writing a cheque for hundreds of millions of dollars for, maybe, the Russian mafia was a disgrace. On that reason alone we opposed the bill; it was not that we wanted to discourage the planting of forestry to clean up the air.

We need to make sure we protect the green image of New Zealand. We need to lower our emissions. We absolutely need to keep the whole image of New Zealand being 100 pure on the world scale. What we do will not make a hell of a difference at the end of the day, to be perfectly honest; a heck of a lot bigger players on the world market, such as China, are making a bigger mess than we ever could. But is it not nice to stand tall? Is it not nice to show that, hey, we can make a wee difference, we can be leaders, and we can talk positively about where we are going?

In talking leadership I take this chance to congratulate Nick Smith on his leadership in setting the agenda on this issue through A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand, which he introduced the other day. It is a 30-page comprehensive document on the way forward. It was because of his leadership that the Prime Minister decided she had better try to pick up on this issue, which she did at the Labour Party conference the other day when she started talking up climate change. That was in response to the work done by Nick Smith and his leadership. The National Party filled the vacuum that had been very much left by the Labour-led Government. When Peter Neilson, a former Labour Cabinet Minister who is now the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, says that Nick Smith’s blue-green vision for New Zealand is the most comprehensive environment plan for New Zealand to be produced by any political party in over a decade, one has to say that Nick Smith is setting the agenda and leading the country down a path it has to go down. Hence the desire of the Prime Minister to suddenly step up, take notice, and talk about what she calls the climate change crisis requiring comprehensive strategies. Here we are today, talking about a bill that was referred to the Commerce Committee in May 2005. How much for urgency, Prime Minister?

So, not to prolong the debate, I just say I am proud to stand here and say that National members are supporting this bill. This will make a difference. It is part 1 of a many, many faceted, I am sure, strategic plan and delivery to make sure we keep New Zealand clean, show some significant leadership, and make a difference.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.